Bush Poised to Veto Long-Sought Labor Reform

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One of the most important bills for working Americans of the last 10 years is likely to go down in defeat, even though Democrats control Congress. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is an anti-union-busting measure that would restore the right to form unions, a right working people have enjoyed mostly on paper since the "Reagan revolution" stacked the deck against workers trying to organize. The House passed the bill last month, but it's widely expected to be defeated in the Senate, and if it does survive, it will almost certainly fall to George Bush's veto pen.

If EFCA is defeated, it will carry little or no political cost, largely because America's corporatocracy has done a bang-up job of framing the debate. A coalition of big business groups conducted a wildly misleading poll, one that gave respondents the (false) idea that the bill will diminish rather than protect workers' rights -- specifically, their right to a fair vote about whether to unionize. They've taken that spin and synchronized it across the whole of the conservative communications infrastructure -- from business-funded think tanks to right-wing blogs, to the Wall Street Journal editorial page to lawmakers walking the halls of Congress.

But while the right's rhetoric has been in perfect lockstep, the bill's been pushed almost exclusively by organized labor, with too little outreach to the broader progressive movement and little in the way of a coordinated and effective message. As a result, the media's characterized it as a "union bill" -- which plays to the idea that it's driven by "special interests" -- and it's likely to die a quiet death with little notice among the general public.

Given the Democratic control of Congress and the debilitated state of working America, this is a tragedy. The need for reform is urgent. Union busting has reached a high art form in the United States. Companies no longer need thugs and gun-toting Pinkertons to keep workers from exercising their legal rights to organize; now they have high-priced, Armani-wearing lawyers, who simply brainwash workers into silence.

The tactics are as subtle as they are insidious. A study by Cornell University labor scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner found that: nine in 10 employers facing a union campaign force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; 80 percent train supervisors on how to attack unions and require them to deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee; half of employers threaten to shut down the plant if workers organize; and three out of four hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, "often based on mass psychology and distorting the law."

...

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/50406/

[mawilson 2,133]

Yay, big business!

[kaydee457 13]

Sure, this is just what we need....more government regulations. It's not a right under the constitution to allow assembly of workers to disrupt and otherwise make demands on businesses and affect their profitability.

The simple fact is that Unions have outlived their usefulness and have lost their purpose. In recent times, due to the global competitiveness of the marketplace, have stunted the income and growth, benefits of the people they represent.

They’ve crippled the U.S. automakers and have stymied other industries in this country making demands that are anticompetitive.

Kudos to President Bush for killing such anti-capitalistic measures...

[almaty 19]

bush is a chopf##k..f##k big business

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess the question is do companies treat their employees well enough to justify the lack of regulation? Not being a CEO (or even a shareholder for that matter) I’m not sure whether the interests of big business are really one and the same with the self-interest of the average employee. IMO it’s hard to see how the employee benefits from the scaling back of health and other benefits.

So I’m really not sure whether “Yay capitalism / big business” really means anything substantive to me like that. I’m sure most employees just want to know that they won’t have their benefits taken away at the drop of the hat, or lose their jobs for next to no reason via “at will” contract clauses.

[Dr_LHA 3]

The issue of corperate responsibility is a tought one. The fact is that businesses should be run so that they don't screw their employees. If you can't make money unless you take away your employees benefits, then there's something wrong with your business model. The fact is that without Unions or legislation to help workers, we'll all end up working class poor. You can see this happening now in America, the middle class is being destroyed and replaced by poverty and a few very rich people.

Unions need to be scaled down in the USA, because the huge Unions like the UAW are really no better than huge corperations. However I strongly believe that Unions can have a positive effect on society, if only to put a stop to ridiculous things like the recent Circuit City purge of workers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issue of corperate responsibility is a tought one. The fact is that businesses should be run so that they don't screw their employees. If you can't make money unless you take away your employees benefits, then there's something wrong with your business model. The fact is that without Unions or legislation to help workers, we'll all end up working class poor. You can see this happening now in America, the middle class is being destroyed and replaced by poverty and a few very rich people.

Unions need to be scaled down in the USA, because the huge Unions like the UAW are really no better than huge corperations. However I strongly believe that Unions can have a positive effect on society, if only to put a stop to ridiculous things like the recent Circuit City purge of workers.

Agreed. I just wonder why people think the broad interests of corporate big business are synonymous with their own personal self-interest. Whether the company makes a profit at the end of the year is meaningless to the employee if they're being squeezed to make tight profit margins.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They’ve crippled the U.S. automakers and have stymied other industries in this country making demands that are anticompetitive.

According to the latest calculations, the gap between Japanese and American carmakers' profits average out to about $2900 per vehicle, and the home team does not have the advantage.

Cost issues

A big reason is the cost of labor. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese.

Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

...

On the revenue side, it is easier to apportion blame. The lack of pricing power by American producers, brought on by poor quality, unimaginative marketing and sales to rental fleets, cost them nearly $1,000 per car. When everything is added up, the average Japanese automaker reports revenue of $24,289 per vehicle - $2,692 more than the average domestic manufacturer.

All in all, the report paints a bleak picture. While Nissan (Charts) was making $1800 per vehicle during the first half of 2006, and Toyota and Honda (Charts) racked up $1,400 apiece, nine-month results for Ford saw them losing $1,400 per vehicle - a number that will go up when the fourth quarter's loss is tallied - while DaimlerChrysler (Charts) dropped $1100 and GM $333.

....

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/compa...rtune/index.htm

It's harder for us to compete with countries that provide national healthcare...don't blame the unions for that one.

...

Japan, on the other hand, already boasts the world's lowest infant mortality rate and longest life expectancy, while achieving more success than America at containing medical costs: in 1991, spending on health care accounted for a mere 6.6 percent of Japan's total gross domestic product versus 13.4 percent of America's.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html

Edited April 24, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[mawilson 2,133]

They’ve crippled the U.S. automakers and have stymied other Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

It's harder for us to compete with countries that provide national healthcare...don't blame the unions for that one.

What national healthcare? We are talking about U.S. workers employed by Jap corporations in the U.S.

If GM spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care of their employees, and Toyota spends zilch, then who's

the bad guy here? Kudos to GM, #### Toyota. Keep buying Jap cars, Steven, while complaining about

the "big business".

[Dr_LHA 3]

What national healthcare? We are talking about U.S. workers employed by Jap corporations in the U.S.

If GM spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care of their employees, and Toyota spends zilch, then who's

the bad guy here? Kudos to GM, #### Toyota. Keep buying Jap cars, Steven, while complaining about

the "big business".

You think GM is being a "good guy" because they spend $1,635 per vehicle on health care and retirement? Wrong. They'd drop that in a second if they could. It's all because of bad business and bad deals with the UAW. I'm going to admit the union shoulders a lot of the blame for that, which is why I said above that the big unions are a bad idea. They're too corrupt and too powerful, and way too close to the corporations than the people they're supposed to represent.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They’ve crippled the U.S. automakers and have stymied other Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

It's harder for us to compete with countries that provide national healthcare...don't blame the unions for that one.

What national healthcare? We are talking about U.S. workers employed by Jap corporations in the U.S.

If GM spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care of their employees, and Toyota spends zilch, then who's

the bad guy here? Kudos to GM, #### Toyota. Keep buying Jap cars, Steven, while complaining about

the "big business".

Are you saying that Japanese automakers here in the states don't offer healthcare to it's workers?

The fact remains...because the US doesn't have national healthcare, we are unable to remain competitive in the global market, citing automakers as an example. Kaydee wants to blame competition being stymied by the unions...lets then dish out the blame fairly. National healthcare is something the Republicans oppose.

from Economic Strategy Institute...

Health Care Costs Cripple US Manufacturers

So what ails the US automotive industry? Some of its problems are self-inflicted: a reputation for iffy reliability and aging product lines that rely too heavily on behemoth SUVs even in the face of rising gasoline prices have helped to allow foreign competitors to grab ever more market share. But there are deeper structural issues that threaten the profitability and competitiveness of the industry, and the blame for these problems lies squarely with public policy makers in Washington.

First, rising health care and pension costs are draining funds from Detroit’s coffers and choking off R&D funding. Last year GM spent over $5.2 billion on medical benefits for over 1.1 million workers and retirees. That works out to over $1,400 per vehicle! There is more health care than steel in the cost of each GM vehicle sold. On top of that, GM made over $6.5 billion in pension contributions last year, and the firm supports three retirees for every current worker it employs.

*side note, Mark - US automakers lackluster performance also is because of what I've said along (see the above in red).

http://www.econstrat.org/blog/?p=26

[mawilson 2,133]

Are you saying that Japanese automakers here in the states don't offer healthcare to it's workers?

Toyota pays health benefits for their U.S. active employees and dependents too. But Toyota

does not have GM's retiree health burden, which is what adds $1,300 to the cost of every car

and truck GM makes in the U.S.

[Sinergy 3]

bush is a chopf##k..f##k big business

[almaty 19]

Are you saying that Japanese automakers here in the states don't offer healthcare to it's workers?

Toyota pays health benefits for their U.S. active employees and dependents too. But Toyota

does not have GM's retiree health burden, which is what adds $1,300 to the cost of every car

and truck GM makes in the U.S.

so brother MA, this was part of the union and company contract agreement..which GM agreed too..so, that is GM fault and not the Union...the union goal get as much as possible for the workers..the compnay goal..make profits..

.i have never worked at a job, that had this type of retirement plan/;/of course, i am a chopf##k

[mawilson 2,133]

so brother MA, this was part of the union and company contract agreement..which GM agreed too..so, that is GM fault and not the Union...the union goal get as much as possible for the workers..the compnay goal..make profits..

.i have never worked at a job, that had this type of retirement plan/;/of course, i am a chopf##k

Don't blame GM. Blame the hospitals and the insurance companies.

Also, in 1962 GM had 11 workers for every retiree; in 2005, there were 3.2 retirees for every worker.