Capitalism: A Love Story

Prior to leaving for Morocco, my time was stretched thin and I wasn't afforded the opportunity of heading to the Mayan to view Michael Moore's latest installment. I can think of few documentarians who have ascended to Moore's prominence and polarizing nature. I grew up in a household that valued his mix of satire and gripping portrayals of Americans wronged by social inequities. From TV Nation to Canadian Bacon, I grew up around his films, shows, books, and speaking. (OK, Canadian Bacon happened, by random, to be shown on Comedy Central.) Capitalism doesn't deliver on a variety of fronts.

I'm familiar with the Moore template of campy footage of those halcyon days of the past--imagined and actual--juxtaposed to today's perfidy and error, and the subject matter usually runs along the same lines. Capitalism seemed looser and confuses meaning and intention. Is one to walk away from this with the closing argument that capitalism is unremittingly evil, thus calling for the institution of a new economic system? When the final message is, verbatim, "capitalism is evil," what is the desired outcome for a viewer? I'll return to that question at the end. Another point, Moore's films balance humor and critique. This time around, outside of a Cleveland video not of his making, it was flat and there was a paucity of jokes (dead pan or cheap) from the bespectacled, ballcapped, heavy set chap from Michigan. Of course, there's nothing funny about a massive capitalist economic failure, one could retort. Certainly true. Still, he discovered ways to lace the other films with humor.

For me, it started off oddly with commentary from Wallace Shawn. Who, you might ask? This fella from everyone's favorite 80s film (but not mine):

In fairness to Shawn, he apparently graduated from Harvard with a degree in history and had designs for a career in economics after studying at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. A BA approximately forty years ago doesn't entitle one to postulate as a qualified expert. There are a litany of academic economists who could have explicated our current economic failure and capitalism's flaws: Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Simon Johnson, James Galbraith, Robert Shiller, to name a few. Instead you have Vizzini the Sicilian? His use of Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, was one of the bright spots in the film.

Capitalism tours the scorched landscape left after America's economic fortunes soured and, correctly, before when workers' wages failed to grow. In typical Moore fashion, those watching are treated to disturbing scenes of greed with families tossed out of homes, Dead Peasant insurance scams, and how little people (ie, the majority of Americans) suffer under capitalism's negative ramifications that benefited a fraction of our fellow citizens. I was heartened to see footage from the victorious Chicago Republic Windows and Doors sit down strike and residents retaking a foreclosed home before Moore launched into his theatrics that, to me, was a tired shtick even thought it worked in the past.

Near the end, viewers are treated to a previously unseen clip of President Franklin Roosevelt enunciating his proposal for a Second Bill of Rights before cameras. Moore neglects to mention that had Roosevelt lived, he would have faced the same culture of post-war conservatism that led to Taft-Hartley and opposed Harry Truman's Fair Deal.

He concludes with the resounding charge "capitalism is evil." By blurring the lines of capitalism's inherent villainy, Capitalism elides the past accomplishments of the post-war economic growth that generated a thriving middle class of a sort largely unseen in history. What should have been said, and will be lost on those who aren't familiar with the Cold War era, is regulated capitalism opens the door for opportunity and the implementation of neoliberalism led us to this teetering state of today. I can already hear the derisive, back handed "corporatist" attacks. Regardless, it was a disappointing way to wrap up the movie when he could have adopted a moderate stance that could return us to the prosperity of his youth. As a document of sorts, it's a product of the bubbling energy following Obama's electoral victory, and has yet to confront the realities of lowered expectations. The next few months will reveal the administration's and Senator Christopher Dodd's commitment to safeguarding the economy and finance capital's from its own devices that landed us in this current mess. Hey, at least no one is consulting Robert Rubin.

Is a Cold Fish Equivalent to a Nurse's Smock?

Andy Stern, head of SEIU, sent Glenn Beck a care package of SEIU swag, including a purple nurse's smock with an attached note regarding health care. According to a Huffington Post article, Beck hypothesized that Obama wore a purple tie to "signal" Stern and SEIU, both of which are the victims of attacks from Beck on a consistent basis. This nonsense triggered Stern's gifts. Instead of accepting it as a good-natured, whimsical package, Beck compared the gift to the iconic scene in the Godfather when the Corleone family discovers that the Tattaglia family murdered Luca Brasi.

Beck's reply? He created a t shirt with the following message on the front: "I just wanted to overthrow the government in the 1960s and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

Andy Stern on Obama's Deficit Commission

Andy Stern, President of SEIU, was appointed to Obama's bipartisan deficit commission. Other members include: David Cote, Honeywell International CEO; Alice Rivlin, former Fed Vice Chairman; Ann Fudge former Young & Rubicam Brands CEO. File that under things that surprised me.

Labor Revolt on Democrats' Hands

Democrats are awakening to the fact that they've let their labor constituents down, notably with the failure to appoint Craig Becker in the Senate. I've stated my opinions that it seems unlikely that the legislative calendar and the political currents allow much room for the Democrats to engineer any feats on behalf of workers and unions. It begs another question, do the Democrats want to open doors for organized labor? A story from the Politico paints a dismal portrait of how union reps are smarting over failures by the Democrat dominated government. Whether in the disappointing impotence in passing a health care bill or Obama's and Duncan's Race to the Top or merit pay that's not appealing to teachers' unions (ie AFT & NEA), labor heavies are voicing their anger. The Democrats are running down an odd path if they want to sustain a coalition that brought electoral victories in 2006 and 2008. A story in the Financial Times pins the blame on the fearsome foursome (Emanuel, Jarrett, Axelrod,Gibbs) surrounding the President and maintaining a permanent campaign atmosphere in the West Wing. The thing about campaigns is that you have to win...at least some, especially for the people who were active members that propelled you to office.

Alexi Giannoulias on EFCA

The winner of the Illinois Democratic Senate Primary, Alexi Giannoulias, participated in an interview with Adam B from the Daily Kos. Of course, Giannoulias backs EFCA. Now that card check is obviously dead, he points to one of EFCA's stronger provisions to protects workers' rights: binding arbitration.

I would like to highlight one measure in the bill that I don’t think gets discussed enough: binding arbitration. Under current law, if a newly formed union does not come to a contractual agreement with an employer within the first year of the union’s existence, employees must hold a second election to keep the union. In that second election, a majority of employees must vote in favor of keeping the union in order for the employees to remain unionized. Binding arbitration would ensure that workers who wish to form a union are able to obtain a contract and that their first vote is honored.

EFCA opponents recognize that as a stalling technique, resisting a contract opens the door for crushing a union with anti-union education seminars, intimidation, bribery, and dismissal or reassignment. I don't know if Giannoulias has a shot in this political climate, especially if Massachusetts elected Scott Brown. Regardless, I'm pleased with his stance on labor and if he can marshal or energize Democratic voters...somehow.

Ford's Resurgence

Detroit's standard bearer, Ford Motor Company, is uniquely poised to return to its prosperous days of yore. When its US competitors pulled their empty pockets out and accepted TARP funds, Ford plugged ahead without resorting to bankruptcy court thanks to smart business decisions before the economy went pear shaped. Motor Trend bestowed the Car of the Year award to Ford for the 2010 Fusion, and Ford reported its first annual profit in four years of 2.7 billion and predicted sales of 12.5 million for 2010. In the wake of Toyota's sticky gas pedal problem, the once leader is looking a bit tarnished at a time when Ford is shooting to regain its position as the leader in the automotive industry. In fairness, Ford halted production from the same Chinese plant that delivered the faulty gas pedals to Toyota. While Chinese products appear cheap, their durability and safety are still in question.

Ford is slated to commence production of the Ford Explorer in a Chicago plant on Torrence Avenue. With the Explorer comes 1,200 new jobs and increased orders for the Chicago Heights stamping plant. Thanks to tax cuts in Illinois and sacrifices by UAW members, the Explorer was lured away from Louisville, KY, which will shift to manufacturing cars. The new workers's wages will be cut in half from regular wages--a move the UAW did not oppose. It doesn't appear that Ford workers objected. According to NBC Chicago, Debra Green, a Ford employee for ten years, greeted the news by exclaiming "my heart is racing...I’m really happy to have a job. I can't believe we're going to two shifts." Her sentiments were echoed by John Orlando, who interpreted the announcement as evidence that a position with Ford is more than a simple job: it's a legacy and long-term relationship. "I'd be happy for my kids to work here now and do like I did....Everyone wants to come back to Ford." During this period of economic uncertainty, as I noted in my Labor in 2010 post, workers and unions are eschewing a course that might threaten their employment and the future of production and recovery. It's awfully difficult for me to advocate for romanticized labor radicalism from my chair. Still, EFCA is an important step forward for the rights of unions to compete with companies on an equal stage.

Jefferson Cowie, Capital Moves: RCA's Seventy Year Quest for Cheap Labor

If you're looking for a work that weaves transnational history and theoretical inquiries, you've come to the right place. Jefferson Cowie revised his North Carolina dissertation into a fantastic book. Under the direction of Leon Fink, Cowie wrote a dissertation that became an intriguing work of history that is emblematic of the new methodological directions occurring in the field. Starting in Camden and wrapping up in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, RCA loaded up the family and moved to...well, certainly not Beverly, but in search of cheap, docile laborers. In each spot, however, RCA discovered that unions and workers' demands for fair treatment (ie, dignity) cut into their profits and production over the course of seventy years of boom and bust. RCA settled in Ciudad Juarez where ample labor pools of young women, pliable unions, and state sponsorship awaited their shiny, new TV factories.

Capital Moves is a book worth emulating. Cowie speaks Spanish and utilizes Spanish language materials, drew upon approximately forty interviews (in-person and via archival collections), and bridged disciplinary bounds to fashion a concise chronological narrative, all in the space of 210 pages. Rejecting the concept of labor peace between capital and unions after World War II, he reveals how RCA consistently sought to undermine solidarity and boost its profits through the pursuit of low-cost labor. In other words, the concept of a corporatist utopia is in doubt. Cowie states "most historians date the disintegration of the pact [between labor and capital] in the mid-1970s or beyond, but RCA's plant location decisions in the 1930s and 1940s suggest that management may have been significantly less committed to its end of the bargain than many analysts presume" (6). RCA moved south and, along the way, nurtured communities and a sense of culture, which is one of the author's strong contributions.

In the acknowledgments, Cowie thanks Fink for allowing him to cross disciplines in his dissertation, and historians should be grateful he did. Geographers, along with anthropologists, are producing exciting work, and Cowie hints at their ideas throughout the book and their influence is on full display in chapter seven, "The Distances in Between," where he examines the concept of community, place, space, and the influence on solidarity. In addition to Karl Marx and Pierre Bourdieu, georgraphers Gordon Clark, David Harvey, Edward Soja, Michael Storper, and Richard Walker appear as he charts what RCA's southward march meant for those along its path. Fascinating stuff, and content you won't find among most labor historians or, for that matter, historians.

I think Cowie's introduction could have benefited from a discussion of neoliberalism and its derivates. As it stands, he peppers the chapters with the term and concept without delving into any of its roots. Thus it seems divorced from the broader conversation of it as an economic policy with considerable social and cultural ramifications. One could rebut this criticism with the standard "he's writing for specialists who know this scholarly terrain." But do they? I would wager a bet that a fair proportion of historians are unfamiliar with Harvey, who is the most prominent of neoliberal scholars, or neoliberalism's manifestations. Certainly some are fluent in this matter or at least cognizant, however, I think the book could have been on stronger footing had he broached the concept at the onset.

A related criticism stems from the focus on Latin America, and this isn't a pointed criticism of Cowie per se. I don't understand labor historians' preoccupation with Latin America. Jana Lippman, Julie Greene, Cowie, Fink, Beth McKillen, and Dana Frank wrote fantastic scholarship that is a credit to their subfield. Regardless, I am stumped for an answer when I ponder the effect or intention of this geographic focus. It was once related to me that some Latin Americanists view this attention with skepticism and question if it's another example of American(ist) hegemony in academia. I'm not qualified to venture into this territory, so I'll abstain from wading into this topic.

These criticisms notwithstanding, I think Cowie wrote an impressive book that well deserved the 1999 Philip Taft Labor History Prize. Chapter seven is an intellectual contribution--along with the book as a whole--and historians could do well to tackle the issues he raises and integrate his interdisciplinary approach in future works. In other words, a sterling example of history that is readable and intellectually compelling.

Labor in 2010

This week I've been focused on resuming employment with my Chicago job and the disaster in Haiti, as most folks have been. I started this post last week and, since, my perspective on labor's status in the US improved thanks to the health care morass. Who would have considered that anything positive could emerge from this contentious, ridiculous debate? Rich Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, assumed a prominent role in negotiating taxes on Cadillac health plans. Even though Haiti justly dominated the news cycle, Trumka and others worked closely with the executive and legislative in hammering out differences in order to speed a finalized bill. (The one name that's absent from these news stories is Andy Stern, especially considering the role of SEIU in electing President Obama.) It appears that working-class households and employees who have collectively bargained contracts stand to gain in the future when the tax is levied.

Who is Trumka? Thus far, outside of Stern, he's using his office and prominence to fight for the working-class. He's steeling the movement and giving it some spine, and the LAT credited him with retaining an activist's passion. He realizes that it's now or never on some key matters, such as health care or EFCA, and is urging Democrats to seize the moment and avoid squandering their position. In another sign of the AFL-CIO's augmented national role, the labor giant is preparing to join the on-line degree crowd with virtual classes for union families through the National Labor College. The curriculum focuses on a wide-variety of subjects and the degree-granting program will begin with BAs and, according to Steven Greenhouses's piece, build to Associates and Masters.

So is labor poised to arise from the ashes of the last thirty years of reversals and a shrinking base--both in human and economic terms? I wouldn't break out the booty wax just yet. The poor economic news, unemployment, and potential electoral setbacks for Democrats in the fall will make legislative and executive allies reticent to champion EFCA or measures that are seen to pander to "Big Labor," a favorite conservative cudgel. Considering the level of GOP intransigence and obstruction to the Democrats' legislative efforts, it seems unlikely that EFCA can appear and pass into law before November.

As Jeanne Cummings of Politico writes, for Labor, there's always next year. As of now, the Democrats' and President's legislative calendar and agenda are full. I guess EFCA could slip in should employment and the economy perk up in tandem with Obama's approval rating, but I won't hold my breath. Even the hotbed of labor radicalism and wild cat strikes of UAW Local 1112 at the GM Plant in Lordstown, Ohio, see their survival linked to corporate success. Captain Wendy Morse of United's pilot union is also approaching management with reserved demands, a marked difference from the past. In these economic times, to ensure survival, the course of radicalism is eschewed in favor of one that guarantees employment and safety. I think it's a little misplaced to presume that Americans and their elected representatives will authorize a bill that provides for sweeping alterations to organizing practices in this climate. The thrust for jobs, jobs, jobs may offer a window of opportunity for EFCA or a similar bill. However, considering the willingness of the administration to shed the public option, EFCA could fall victim to political exigencies.

Regardless, it's important to balance pessimism with appreciation of how labor, under the leadership of Trumka and Stern, is scrapping back into the corridors of power. Hilda Solis, labor's number one ally, is striking a definite tone to reverse former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao's lackluster enforcement and equitability for workers in regulation of workplace safety measures, contract bargaining, and wage disputes. The National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, with little surprise, oppose the course Secretary Solis has plotted thus far and yearn for her predecessor's pro-business policies. Of course, as the final death throes of debates over health care demonstrate, President Obama recognizes labor's relevance to his own success and as members of a coalition to preserve his power. It's not all bad and there's reason to appreciate that the environment for labor dynamism in politics is improving. EFCA might have a shot. Maybe, just maybe.

China's Rising Power and Workers Abroad

In a recent story in the NYT titled "China's Export of Labor Faces Scorn" in the Uneasy Engagement series, reporters examined China's policy of filling foreign commercial and industrial ventures with its own workers. In Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (notably in Iraq), state-owned and independent enterprises draw on China's elastic labor pool rather than hiring local workers. Countries that suffer from endemic unemployment feel the sting of this policy and it fosters resentment. Of course, with a labor glut, the Chinese government can insist on employing Chinese laborers and easily deport workers and replace them with little difficulty. It's a resourceful strategy to limit labor unrest that threatens production or, in many cases, extraction. China does not deserve a free pass. Its drive centers on natural resource extraction and neoliberal capitalism, which is no better than previous imperial dalliances.

Historically speaking the treatment of indigenous workers by colonial authorities--or how they were shaped by colonial dictates on labor--facilitated the birth of a vibrant and organized working-class in many parts of the world. That working-class rallied its members to oppose colonialism and laid claim to independence politics in the twentieth century. One can question the effectiveness of working-class resistance to a colonial power if they do not have the advantage of acting within the workplace. In other words, without presence in centers of industry and production, strikes and other forms of protest lose their power in crucial ways. At the dawn of a new empire, it's fascinating to analyze how China approaches the working-class and natural resources in developing countries as it speeds expansion.

(This post was written before I left for holiday travel and I'm publishing it today as part of a blogging blitz.)

Best Damn English Blog on Indonesian Labor

Working Indonesia, as the title of this post says, is the best damn English language blog on Indonesian labor. With a monstrous list of resources and regular updates, it's a font of insight.

China Digs into a Lucrative Afghan Copper Mine

China was awarded a contract over the Aynak copper mine, and, predictably, the selection contributes to the chorus of graft complaints in China. The Chinese state owned company, China Metallurgical (MCC), beat American and Canadian companies in the 2007 bidding process. The story is back in the news as the mine is preparing to open and conduct extraction. The United States' war enabled this process, and I wouldn't ever contend that we are "owed" first rights to strip a country's national resources. I wanted to post this to illustrate how China's rising is tied with resources and the US's sacrifices, as I pointed out in Trading Sanctions for a Missile Shield.

The Chinese are adept capitalists and most likely its resource diplomacy will run aground and increase disenchantment with China's growing power, as it already has for Iraqi oil workers. The Chinese favor importing their own workers instead of relying on indigenous workers, as the Newsday and NYT articles claim, which can only add to doubts over China's extractive efforts. US's companies record on exploiting local workers is hardly sterling, and the level of US companies' benefits to foreign workers and their environment is debatable. However, the Chinese strategy of avoiding labor strife and discontent by employing Chinese workers in foreign ventures could possibly backfire and foster nationalist resentment toward China and its businesses that seem intent on mining, drilling, or otherwise removing natural resources.

Playing Ball for Organized Labor and EFCA

By all appearances, organized labor is quieting what many considered it's number one priority, the Employee Free Choice Act, in favor of comprehensive health care reform. With the release of the White House guest logs, I was surprised to learn that Andy Stern visited 1600 Penn twenty-two times, which was more than any person whose name was requested. SEIU and Change to Win were vital elements in Obama's coalition that propelled him into the White House. Of course, there's no guarantee that Stern met with the president or any ranking cabinet-level officials. Trumka entered the White House seven times. I would not be surprised to learn that EFCA is still a possibility next year or two after Obama's big ticket agenda items pass.

With that in mind, the AFL-CIO released a snappy flyer with a roster of baseball players who support EFCA. With the title "A Level Playing Field is as Important in the Workplace as it is in Baseball," the advertisement grouped photos and positions of Heath Bell, Dave Bush, LaTroy Hawkins, Torii Hunter, John Lannan, Andrew Miller, J.J. Putz, Jimmy Rollins, Mark Teixeira, Justin Verlander, Shane Victorino and Adam Wainwright to express their support for EFCA.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/world-series-stars-push-e_n_336658.html

Trading a Missile Shield for Sanctions

Obama launched an eager push at the United Nations and at the G-20 gathering in Pittsburgh to foster international resolve on punishing Iran for its nuclear energy and purported nuclear weapon program. Even though US intelligence failed to locate any evidence of a weapons program, the disclosure of a new uranium enrichment facility in Qom scares the bejesus out of the Americans, British, French, and Israelis. As Juan Cole points out, however, the Qom installation is suspicious but should not be regarded as a sure sign of a nuclear weapons program. Nor should it it swell the drum beats for war. At Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch believes that the Obama administration engineered a successful first diplomatic strike at the UN and in Pittsburgh that will fast-track sanctions or other international efforts to dismantle Iran's quickening pace. A WINEP fellow and FP Shadow Government contributor, Michael Singh, offers guarded praise for the initial efforts. Despite some sun, he forecasts red skies at morning if Obama and the US' allies cannot rein in Iran over the course of the next few months.

If Obama can draw Russia into agreement on imposing new sanctions, then he plucked a thorn from the bear's paw and demonstrated why an effective diplomatic agenda requires compromise over issues that threaten your dancing partner. (As an aside, my friend Nate Matlock commented that I could have been more explicit in the thorn post. Poland and the Czech Republic are NATO member countries and thus are shielded by a collective security agreement and have little to fear from a direct Russian attack. Thanks, Nate.) The question centers on China's support or rejection of the American, British, French, and Israeli movement. After the tire tariff, the US and China are in a minor spat with President Hu Jintao voicing his displeasure with the US trade decision. The Daily Beast's Mark McKinnon--a self-avowed free market and radical free trader--is fretting over the Obama administration's precedent and worries that an impending trade war will result from Obama's bows to scary big labor. Oh, you innocent free traders. Similar to those who apotheosize neoliberal free trade, McKinnon attacks organized labor (how can we shackle the free market? do you hate freedom?) and neglects to shed light on Chinese policies that might disagree with his unblemished ideals of free and fair competition. I've stated my opinions on these utopian flights of fancy, so I won't beat a dead horse.

The Obama administration will need to organize an effective diplomatic coalition in the P5 if they don't want the Chinese to veto sanctions. The Chinese are unlikely to jump on board without some inducement or pressure. Gal Luft, writing for the Harvard Middle East Strategy blog, suggests that the Chinese won't be plied away easily as they stand to gain from a proposed natural gas pipeline named Nabucco. Even though I'm not wild on his political views, Luft's writing on energy are fantastic. The Chinese have demonstrated their keen aptitude in natural resource diplomacy and leveraging their resources. (McKinnon and his orthodox pals don't seem to register any indignation with Chinese actions in such cases, apparently. But that Employee Free Choice Act, it's a sure sign of economic ruin.) Luft's cautionary rhetoric aside, he delineates the steps the US should take to prevent the pipeline from crossing Pakistan into India and through to China. It's worth questioning if the US has the power to accomplish that goal as its position in Afghanistan grows more precarious by the day, and it's worth wondering if the US can convince the Pakistanis--and by extension India and China--that it's not in their vested interest to push for the pipeline. (Luft says no in an August FP piece on the foolishness of gas sanctions for Iran.) We're entering a new, exciting period of resource diplomacy, and energy concerns will assume a center spot in any discussion on sanctions over Iran's nuclear program and if President Obama can swing President Hu onto the bandwagon.

Tire Tariff and Free Trade, Neoliberal Economics

The steelworkers union scored a coup recently with the tariff on Chinese tires, and the United Steelworkers have a large appetite for leveling imbalances in the facade of free trade. Pointing out that Chinese companies receive lucrative subsidies and a host of state support, the steelworkers convinced the commerce department and the executive branch to place a thirty-five percent tax on Chinese tires. Obama recognizes that, in some ways, he owes his victory to unions and if he wants to win in Ohio and Pennsylvania, he will back their requests. As United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard pointed out, Chinese companies benefit from state intervention and support. To further illustrate this point, the final installment in the NYT's series Uneasy Engagement--which reports on the "stresses and strains of China’s emergence as a global power"--found that state companies and corporations headed by influential politicians or their relatives were linked to corrupt business tactics in Africa. Far from relying on fair strategies, the Chinese government and its businesses (the same as the Americans and most world powers) utilizes its leverage and financial resources to enrich itself and state companies regardless of the cost. It's silly to believe that they play the game with any other intention.

As one could guess, economists are decrying the tariff and warning of protectionism battles that threaten the inviolable doctrine of free trade. It's all well and good if you're preaching free trade in an economics classroom or from an executive's chair in a conference room, but the utopia of neoliberal free trade doesn't pay off for millions of Americans and hundreds of millions more across the world. My complaint about macroeconomics is that they fail to address the social cost and how free trade can eviscerate the working-class. Recently, in Paul Krugman's piece in the NYT Magazine, How did Economists Get it So Wrong, he blasted macro econ profs for, ultimately, their ignorance and reliance upon faulty quantitative models that distanced economists in academia, government, and the private sector from reality. While it won't surprise anyone, he lumps the majority of blame on neoclassical economists from the University of Chicago school ("freshwater economists") who dismissed Keynesian economics roundly. (As an aside, in a blog entry on Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman shares that Chicago economists did not enjoy his jeremiad. In typical fashion, Krugman doesn't give a rat's ass.)

Krugman credits the saltwater economists--the camp which he falls in as well as Brad DeLong--for keeping the Keynesian flame alive, and he advocates for dropping byzantine Planglossian modeling and a shift toward behavioral economics to grasp how and why economists function. Behavioral economics might offer a path to reduce volatility and put a necessary end to dreamy concepts such as credit derivative swaps.

I'm not an economist and I don't play one on TV or popular press outlets. I agree with Krugman and I think he's correct for pointing out that the profession as a whole requires an intellectual overhaul. However, his article never mentions how people encounter the Great Recession and similar horrific contractions. People appear as abstract, generalized concepts rather than individuals who suffer, lose, or marginally benefit. Economists are divorced from social consequences, which is why I'm pleased that the Obama administration acted in concert with the Steelworkers' requests. The obvious rejoinder is that macro economic methodology doesn't permit for such a narrow focus, which is the preserve of micro economics or social scientists. Fine, but it fails to explain why America's leading economists advance theory and policy that benefit a small section of a population and neglects to help the majority of people and often hurts them in pursuit of lofty ideas of streamlined free trade and GDP increases.

The question returns to a simple inquiry: who benefits and at what cost?

Labor and Changing of the Guard

John Sweeney retired from his post as the head of the AFL-CIO, and former AFL-CIO Rick Trumka will steer the nation's most prominent labor organization. As Harold Myerson writes in the WaPo, Sweeney presided over a period where labor faced setbacks and declining numbers, some of which produced SEIU and other unions to split and from the AFL-CIO. Sweeney, as Myerson points out, deserves credit for repositioning labor as a central player in the Democratic Party and a liberal coalition as well as the initial gains on EFCA. If EFCA passes--and it has a better shot of doing so now that card check is gone--Trumka's priority must be to be swing the AFL-CIO's field operations into action and commence one of the largest organizing movements in recent history.

If EFCA makes it through Congress and to the president, it will come at a crucial moment. As I commented in conservative opposition to teabag central, the working-class' income shrank during the Bush years and unions represent a powerful way to restore the flagging earning potential of those in many industries which are now working-class that exist outside the traditional conception of the industrial blue collar man. In a piece blasting the Tea Party and its appeal to the working-class, Timothy Egan asks why none of the self-proclaimed patriots opposed the Bush tax cuts, corporate greed and perfidy, the Bush decision to save finance capitalism, or why the majority of Americans failed to benefit after eight years. In essence, Egan ponders why the working-class votes against its interests and empowers politicians and trashy talk show hosts who advocate a system that advances an economic system that limits their ability to prosper. It's a fair question and one that defies an easy answer when anti-government drums are beaten and laced with populist resentment for ratings.

Meet at the Union Hall: Labor Day 2009 & EFCAs Chances

In the wake of Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and Chicago's 1886 Haymarket Affair, labor affairs in the United States encountered fierce opposition courtesy of federal, state, municipal, and corporate forces that linked the working-class to radicalism. Turn of the century labor unrest initiated waves of anti-radicalism and fears of communist/socialist encroachments in the working-class that fueled suppression by national guards, police forces, and corporate hired thugs. So in 1894 when President Grover Cleveland and Congress enshrined a holiday for the working-class, they did not select the day recognized by workers around the world (May 1, to commemorate Haymarket). Instead, he opted for the first Monday in September, which was also proposed by several labor unions. Cleveland's and Congress' decision is one part in the long history of anti-radicalism in the United States.

Since, the plight of the American working-class and organized labor reached dizzying yet fleeting heights and, largely, pits of suppression. Neoliberalism, recessions in the 1970s and early 1980s, and President Ronald Reagan's PATCO firing eviscerated the working-class and its traditional support of organized labor. Corporations and politicians stripped the working-class of any political power with a skillful propaganda campaign that altered the debate by sullying the idea of a working-class (instead we have an amorphous "middle class" that consists of the working-class) and sharpening the tools of union busting. The result? The top 20% of Americans own 80% of the wealth in this country and the bottom 80's wages have moved negligibly from the 1970s. With wealth comes political power, as William Domhoff argues.

SEIU, AFL-CIO, and a host of labor allies recognized the singular opportunity they face with a Democratic Congress and an ally in the White House--the latter of which raked money in from SEIU. So this coalition pushed Congress to reckon with the Employees' Free Choice Act (EFCA) and card check. Card check is dead and won't return. A friend and I discussed card check and he voiced the fear of an anti-democratic procedure foisted on workers, which is a legitimate concern. However, as he and most others don't know, employers are the ones who undertake a deliberately un-democratic tack. They receive fines for obstructing union drives and have the clear upper hand to use pressure in the work place through firing, suspension, forced attendance at anti-union classes, and intimidation, unlike organized labor. By all accounts the future of EFCA will alter the speed at which elections are held and unions' rights to meet with workers, as well monitoring of employers' tactics to prevent a unionization drive.

However, after a bloody August for the administration and Democrats, what is EFCA's fate? As Gallup found in a recent poll, support for organized labor took a substantial dive in the past year.

• In 2008, Gallup reported a 59% positive view of unions. Their recent poll found that level at 48%.
  
• The poll found that 46% of Americans view unions as mostly hurting companies, and 45% believe they mostly help.
• Even worse, 51% of respondents said that unions hurt the economy, and merely 39% said they helped. For comparative purposes, the totals were flipped in 2006.
  

These figures are troubling for unions and their democratic allies as they prepare for the 2010 mid-term elections and the possibility of passing EFCA. Health care will pass--even if it's denuded of actual reform. EFCA is questionable in these economic times with horrible employment figures projected for the future and as pundits such as Charlie Cook portend doom for the Democratic Party next year. As I've said on here in the past, this is the working-class' opportunity. Neither Presidents Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton stood up for labor and, if history is a guide, it's doubtful in times of prosperity that labor reform will pass.

And if you need a refresher on why conservatives despise unions and the working-class, read Jerry Agar's column on Townhall: Labor Day - I'm not Celebrating.

One last addition: President Obama delivered a Labor Day speech at the AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati. He comments on EFCA at the very end with five sentences voicing his support of EFCA, which is less than he spoke on Lilly Ledbetter.

Labor Fights Back for Health Care Reform

It's no secret that Republican operatives, seen below and better known as "screamers," isn't a simple, grass-roots expression of opposition to Obama's health care reform agenda. That's why it's refreshing to see the AFL-CIO and SEIU initiate counter-attacks. AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka promised to oppose the "Brooks Brothers Riot" tactics that disrupted the 2000 Florida recount that Tim mentions below.

I called my Senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, and Representative, Dianna Degette, to voice my support for health care reform. The person I spoke with at Degette's office welcomed my call and mentioned that they received a high volume of calls screaming their anger at the President and health care reform.

Eta: A mob descended on a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida to disrupt a discussion on health care reform. There's nothing like screaming democracy to resolve a major crisis afflicting this country now and in the future as health care costs soak up more and more of this country's GDP.



OK, I'm all for civil discourse and disagreement. But there are certain conditions that make those elements impossible. This is one of those and if you have any doubt about the heightened levels of tension at the Florida town hall meeting, these should answer them.

Card Check is Gone. So What's Next?

Card Check is gone. Of course, EFCA never removed the uber American and democratic secret ballot. Now the question centers on what will replace card check and voting for unions. I think there's a place for the secret ballot. However, through a skillful propaganda and scare campaign, conservatives and business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and a bevy of other anti-union organizations turned the secret ballot into something inviolable and under attack by insidious, freedom-stealing unions and their Democratic allies.

The truth is that companies routinely call on un-democratic methods to crush unions and organizing drives. Pro-union employees are fired, wages or hours are restructured, employees are forced to attend anti-union seminars at work, and a host of implicit and explicit threats are levied in the workplace. What did unions get? Organizers could not enter the work place, unions waited for two months (sometimes longer) until an election, and they were lucky if their representatives in a work place didn't face harassment or firing. Card check was created to remedy the harsh disparity in favor of management.

As Nathan Newman of TPM and others argue, Democrats should refashion the bill into one based on speedy elections and "cracking down on illegal corporate behavior during union elections." SEIU, AFL-CIO, and Democrats could launch a fusillade on how companies devise and initiate a host of unfair tactics and strip employees of their rights. If "democracy" doomed card check, it should be flipped on its head to reverse the attack as a cudgel against NAM, Chamber of Commerce, Wal Mart, Starbucks, etc. What solutions exist in the wake of card check? Strict standards for elections that occur within a few days, protections for pro-union workers from firing or disciplining, presence in the work place in the midst of an organizing drive, and the ability to share its message with workers in an equal footing with company seminars that attack unions.

It's not uncommon for people to contend that unions were useful when the US industrialized, but they have no place with our modern economy. The fact remains that unions are crushed or impeded by employers' tactics that ramped up in the 80s, and were met by an antagonistic or indifferent Department of Labor that had little interest in disputing the status quo after unions faced government and business assaults from the 1970s until today. Further, that line of argument hinders any discussion of what comprises today's working-class and opens the door for the continued blurring of the poor and working-class into an amorphous body that doesn't warrant representation in government, the work place, and domestic and foreign policy decisions.

Starbucks wins tip suit in appeal.

Last year, former and current employees won a suit against Starbucks for allowing shift supervisors a portion of tips, and required that the coffee giant pay 100 million in restitution. A California appeals court overturned the findings yesterday. A gent in my Arabic class last summer was insulted that someone would bring the suit and win. He stated that they're doing the same amount and type of work, and thus deserved a share of tips. While discussing the topic, his impassioned commentary convinced me to avoid any disputes while I still faced five hours of Arabic. And, in part, his logic made sense to me until I read an article in today's Trib. I'm sympathetic with the shift supervisors because they have to work as baristas and, in this time the same as any, those folks need the money to survive.

But I have a problem with Starbucks' defense and my former classmates' argument. The shift supervisor earns three dollars more an hour, and can work up to 95% of the time as a barista. The average tip sharing is 1.71 an hour, according to Starbucks. I don't think I understand why they deserve the tip sharing if they're earning more and working 95% of the time as a glorified barista with even a little supervisory responsibility, according to Starbucks' insistence:

"Although supervisors have some authority to supervise or direct baristas, they can't enforce those directions and can't hire, discipline or terminate them, the Seattle company said."

Of course, there's a large problem with permitting any supervisor to dip into the pool of tips of the regular barista, regardless of wage disparities. I am open to argument in favor of Starbucks, but I'm not convinced that the shift supervisors deserve any apportionment of the tips if they're already paid three dollars more an hour, still retain some supervisory function, and the average tip sharing doesn't allow the regular barista to ease the wage difference. There's no guarantee that the shift supervisor will out perform a standard java jockey. Despite Starbucks' claim, obviously they can enforce directions otherwise they wouldn't be a supervisor. Yes, they might have to work harder, but that's a given once you rise into a management position (at any level) and one's remuneration increases.

It's obvious why Starbucks wants to win. 100 million at a time when the economy is failing, Starbucks battered stores, and it tried to reinvent itself with an all-day training session for baristas and new drinks, the company doesn't want to pay. Even though Starbucks treats its labor force well with perks such as health care, stock options, and tip sharing, corporate welfare exists for a reason: to prevent a potential organization of its workers into a union. Labor organizers, such as UFCW, have a more difficult time appealing to workers at Starbucks and Costco who benefit from corporate welfare than those at Wal Mart and Sam's Club. I don't want to paint Starbucks as a behemoth that cares little for its massive labor pool, because I'm not sure it's the case. That being said, Starbucks opposes EFCA and organized labor due to the elemental reason that it could stand to lose if workers unionize and demand better treatment.

It's not an accident that a part-time barista can earn a modicum of health care through Starbucks. In an economy based on consumption and service jobs, baristas and the folks working at malls are the modern-day auto workers and other non-skilled laborers who filled the ranks of the CIO.

Edit: Okay, I spoke with a friend who worked as a shift supervisor. She informed me that her pay increase was nothing over a dollar, and she remember it as a sixty cent pay difference. While that was a couple of years ago, she also said that her responsibilities were minimal and entailed knowing the safe combo, having keys, and retrieving and dropping off money. I know that's not scheduling, managing a store budget, hiring, firing, etc., but that's a hell of a lot of responsibility. I have less of a quibble if it's only a dollar's difference in wages, but three and tips still seems too much for me when someone has that level of responsibility.

Trouble for EFCA

As the LAT reports, EFCA is in trouble. I presume EFCA won't die but will reappear in the fall or in a year. It could even wait until after the 2010 elections, should the Democrats continue gains. As the article spells out, pro-labor groups and congresspeople have a tough time ahead thanks to the persistence and organization of NAM, Chamber of Commerce, and a list of "merchants' associations" targeted the two senators who sponsored EFCA, Lincoln (D-AR) and Specter (D-PA).

"Labor Unions Find Themselves Card-checkmated"