Labor and the future of the Egyptian revolution
Meanwhile, the Egyptian Independent Trade Unionists have published their demands. Some of these demands relate to raising the minimum wage and prohibiting differences in wages in excess of 15 times between senior managers and workers. Another demand is greater job security and prohibition of the use of temporary workers. While some demands may be unreasonable to the extent they tend to decrease flexibility in the Egyptian labor market and would thus make the Egyptian economy even less competitive than it is now, others are eminently reasonable, indeed necessary, and ought to be recognized immediately. These include the following: 1) The right to organize independent labor unions; 2) The removal of corrupt managers; 3) The right to strike; and, 4) The dissolution of the Egyptian Trade Union Federation.
These demands are necessary components of any future reform package that hopes to improve the efficiency of the Egyptian economy. A strong labor movement with the power of independent collective bargaining can reduce the incidence of corrupt, self-serving management, as well as aid in a more just distribution of national income, two goals that the Mubarak regime utterly failed to achieve. And, given the deep penetration of the Mubarak political machine into the economy, dismissal of corrupt managers would seem to be a revolutionary imperative.
More generally, however, the Trade Unionists' declaration that the fair distribution of wealth, along with the establishment of formal democratic rights, must be one of this revolution's priorities, cannot reasonably be denied if this revolution is to succeed. For that reason, Egypt should adopt a social democratic model, along the lines of the so-called Nordic model. The Scandinavian countries all enjoy highly efficient economies, but yet are characterized by relatively low levels of inequality, strong social services, strong labor unions, and a strong social safety net that substantially eases the cost of (temporary) labor unemployment. Establishment of a social democracy in Egypt, however, will require the upper and professional classes to make economic sacrifices on a scale that they perhaps did not contemplate when they embarked on this revolution, demanding only greater democratic freedoms.
Yet, they should understand that without these sacrifices, any democratic experiment in Egypt will be tenuous at best, or lapse quickly into a police state at worst. The risk of a return to the Mubarak-era police state is palpable in light of Egypt's recent experience under Mubarak: in order to control a growing population of poor and a labor force that was losing its ability to earn a decent living, the government dramatically expanded its police forces to the point that the police force swelled to approximately 1.5 million.
Since the Mubarak regime embarked in the early 1990s on the IMF and World Bank sponsored structural adjustment programs, Egypt has become more unequal; its police forces have swelled; and its commitment to public education as a proportion of the national budget and Egypt's GDP decreased substantially: public spending on education declined from 16 percent of the national budget in 2005 to 11.9 percent in 2008; and educational spending as a proportion of Egypt's GDP declined from 4.8 percent to 3.8 percent over the same period.
Yet, during the last 20-odd years, the economy grew substantially. From this perspective Mubarak's Egypt confirms the wisdom of the 2002 UN Arab Human Development Report's refusal to consider solely macroeconomic indicators such as rising national income to measure development. That report documented the disturbing long-term trend in the Arab world of declining relative investment in education, from 20 percent of that spent by industrialized countries per capita in 1980 to ten percent in the mid-1990s. The 2002 Report also warned against the rise of a bifurcated education system: an expensive system of private education accessible only to the relatively well-off, and a poorly funded public educational system incapable of assisting the less well-off achieve social and economic advancement. Only a commitment to social democracy can reverse these destructive trends.
These figures confirm that the lion's shares of growth in Egypt over the last two decades redounded to the benefit, almost exclusively, of the relatively well-off. But this is not simply a story of transferring wealth from the have-nots to the haves: it is also a story of a state that was unwilling to invest in improving the capacities of its own people. The Mubarak regime effectively purchased temporary macroeconomic stability at the price of future growth by failing to make the necessary social investments in Egypt's people that would assure continued stable growth.
That bill is now due. The upper quartile of Egypt's society by wealth and income must understand that if they truly want a stable democratic regime, with competitive elections and peaceful transition of power among civilians, then they must share more of the economic pie with the rest of Egyptian society. This can take place along two axes: the first is the reduction in subsidies that benefit largely the well off. The gasoline subsidy is one such example. So is free tuition to all public university students without regard to their wealth. Reducing subsidies to the well-off will free up valuable resources to support the poor and the working classes, who are eminently more worthy of state support than families sufficiently well-off to buy imported cars, or even own several apartments.
Likewise, the well-off will need to accept substantially higher taxes. A wealth tax may be easier to implement in the current circumstances than a rise in income tax rates, if only because it avoids the difficulty of documenting taxpayers' earnings, especially if much of that income is generated from real property rather than documented salaries or interest, dividends or capital gains from stock, bonds and certificates of deposit. The government could impose a progressive-style property tax, for example, which would take into account whether the property is the taxpayer's primary residence, its location, and its size, i.e., number of bed rooms; whether the property is the tax payer's first or second home (or even third, etc.); whether the property is occupied or unoccupied. A punitive tax on unoccupied housing as a means to encourage absentee landlords to rent their properties should be considered, in order to increase the supply of rental units in the housing market and thereby make housing more affordable. At the same time, rent-controls should be gradually lifted in at least more well-to-do neighbourhoods to allow appreciations in the values of those properties which in turn could also increase the tax base. A wealth tax could also be levied upon bank accounts, certificates of deposits, bonds and publicly-traded shares, without necessarily causing wealthier Egyptians to shun such investments.
While tax experts might have better suggestions, it is clear that Egypt will not be able to solve its economic problems without responding to the ongoing immiseration of Egypt's working classes and poor. And it will not be able to respond to those problems without risking runaway inflation unless the state's tax base and tax revenues substantially increase. This can only be accomplished if the relatively well-off agree to pay more in taxes.
If Egypt can implement the Nordic model of capitalism, its economic future will be much brighter than if it persists in its current anti-labor, anti-social policies: direct foreign investment would likely increase with evidence of a genuine political commitment to address the structural sources of instability in Egypt; namely, authoritarian rule and gross economic inequality. The resumption of social investments in Egypt's people will also increase Egyptian labor's productivity, thus increasing Egypt's attractiveness as a destination for labor-intensive investments .
Policies such as those described above would also reinforce Egypt's nascent democratic institutions because it would succeed in broadening the base of the citizenry who have a stake in the preservation of parliamentary democracy. With 40 percent of the population living on $2/day or less, it is not too difficult to imagine scenarios of vote-buying or worse. After all, don't the Mubarak thugs, the baltagiyya, come from the poorer classes who are eager to find any kind of work, even if it means acting to repress the rights of their fellow citizens? Accordingly, without a solution to the structural inequality of Egyptian society, there is good reason to fear that any democratic gains from this revolution will be quickly lost. The best way to guarantee that these gains are preserved is for the well-off to commit that they are prepared to make economic sacrifices in the form of social policies that will allow the great mass of Egyptians to share in future prosperity.
There is some evidence that the Supreme Military Council has begun to realize that Egyptian labor has legitimate demands and that the transition to a new government cannot proceed without incorporating labor's views. Today's edition of the Egyptian daily al-Ahram is reporting that the Supreme Military Council has finally agreed to meet with the leaders of the Egyptian Independent Trade Unionists. This is a crucial first step in giving Egyptian labor the recognition that is its due, but until meaningful commitments are made to protect workers' interests, don't hold your breath waiting for labor to get back to work. Nor should they.
FP Foreign Policy, Mon Feb 28 2011
Posted by Mohammed Fadel
Mohammad Fadel is the Canada Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Islamic Law and Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.
The Real Issues: A Wisconsin Update
The media, with few exceptions, is failing to get at the deeper issues.
Let's start with the case of the Lincoln legislators. As is well known about Lincoln, and as the Political Wire reports,
| On December 5, 1840, Democrats "proposed an early adjournment, knowing this would bring a speedy end to the State Bank. The Whigs tried to counter by leaving the capitol building before the vote, but the doors were locked. That's when Lincoln made his move. He headed for the second story, opened a window and jumped to the ground!" |
Lincoln would be, and we all should be, proud that the Wisconsin state senators have courageously crossed the state line to Illinois to avoid a quorum in Wisconsin that would have a disastrous effect, not only on Wisconsin, but on America for the indefinite future.
Quorum rules are an inherent part of democracy. They are in the Wisconsin Constitution for a reason. When an extreme move by a legislative majority would be a disaster, patriotic legislators can, like Lincoln, refuse to allow the disaster is the have the power to stop it. That is their democratic duty, not only to their constituents, but to the nation.
That is why I think these legislators should be called the "Lincoln Legislators" as a term of honor. They understand that their courage is being called upon, not just in the name of collective bargaining rights, but in the name of protecting democracy from a total conservative takeover. The Lincoln story, and the greater good story, should be in the media every day. And Democrats nationwide should be hailing the courage, and vital importance, of those legislators.
Yet the media keeps reporting on them as "fleeing" and refusing to do their jobs. Where there is positive reporting, as on MSNBC's The Ed Show, it is only about defending unions and collective bargaining rights for working people.
The media -- and the Democrats -- also need to do a much better job on a sneaky conservative media strategy. The clearest example occurred in the NY Times. David Brooks, in his Feb. 21, 2011 column wrote: "Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers." I turned on CNN that day and heard Anderson Cooper introduce the Wisconsin protest story as a battle between taxpayers and unions. These are massive distortions, but they are what conservatives want the public to believe.
The real issue is whether conservatives will get what they really want: the ability to turn the country conservative on every issue, legally and permanently. Eliminating the public sector unions could achieve that. Collective bargaining rights are the immediate issue, but they are symbolic of the real issue at stake. That is the story the media should be telling -- and that Democrats everywhere in America should be shouting out loud.
What is standing in the way of having the real story told? It is the frame of collective bargaining itself, which only points to the parties that are doing the bargaining and what they are bargaining over.
The real point of collective bargaining is the idea of fairness inherent in democracy. Without unions, large corporations have an unfair advantage in hiring individual workers: Workers have to take what is offered, a fair wage for work done or not. Unions help to even the playing field, enabling workers to have a fair chance against wealthy, powerful large organizations -- whether corporations or governments.
But public employees' unions, in bargaining with governments, are raising deeper issues in which wealthy corporations and individuals play a huge role. The public employees' unions are aware that the top one percent of Americans have more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent -- a staggering disproportion of wealth. The wealthy have, to a large extent, amassed that wealth through indirect contributions to them by governments -- governments build roads corporations use, fund schools that train their workers, subsidize their energy costs, do research they capitalize on, subsidize their access to resources, promote trade for them, and on and on.
Meanwhile, over the past three decades, while corporations and their investors have grown immensely richer on the public largesse, middle class workers have had no substantive wage increases, leaving them poorer and poorer. Those immensely wealthy corporations and individuals have, through political contributions, have managed to rig our politics so that they pay back only an inadequate amount into the system that has enabled them to become wealthy.
The real targets of the public employees' unions are the wealthy free riders who, in a fair political economy, would be giving back more to the nation, and to the states and communities they function in.
That is the obvious half of what the Wisconsin protests are about. The other half concerns the rights of ordinary people in a democracy -- rights conservatives want to deny, whether gay rights, women's rights, immigrant rights, retirement rights, or the right to the best health a nation can provide to all its citizens. Unions, through their political contributions, support the basic freedoms, protections, and resources we all require to have a decent life and live in a civilized society. If those unions are destroyed, American life will become unrecognizable in a remarkably short time.
Democracy as we know it is at stake in the Wisconsin protests, not just budgets and unions.
Progressives are organizing rallies to "Save The American Dream." They are understating the case.
If Democrats are not talking out loud about these deeper issues, then they are, by their reticence and silence, helping conservatives destroy unions, defund the Democratic party, and take over the country.
The Huffington Post, Sat Feb 26 2011
Byline: George Lakoff
Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.
Here's a thought: maybe Madison, Wis., isn't Cairo after all. Maybe it's Baghdad - specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.
As many readers may recall, the results were spectacular - in a bad way. Instead of focusing on the urgent problems of a shattered economy and society, which would soon descend into a murderous civil war, those Bush appointees were obsessed with imposing a conservative ideological vision.
Indeed, with looters still prowling the streets of Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, told a Washington Post reporter that one of his top priorities was to "corporatize and privatize state-owned enterprises" - Mr. Bremer's words, not the reporter's - and to "wean people from the idea the state supports everything."
The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein's best-selling book "The Shock Doctrine," which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.
Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.
In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor's budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state's fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions - an offer the governor has rejected.
What's happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab - an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.
For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.
And then there's this: "Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state.
Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b)."
What's that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be "considered to be in the public interest."
If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering - remember those missing billions in Iraq? - you're not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker's anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it's interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?
The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage - aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum - has slowed the bum's rush. If Mr. Walker's plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.
But don't expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets.
New York Times, Thurs Feb 24, 2011
Byline: Paul Krugman
Wis. Democrats filibuster to delay anti-union bill
The debate marked the first movement in days in what has become a high-stakes game of political chicken between Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker. The governor says the bill is needed to help solve the state's looming budget deficit, but Democrats see it as an all-out assault on unions, their staunchest campaign ally.
Republicans control both the Assembly and Senate, but Democratic senators have blocked a vote in their chamber by fleeing to Illinois. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of demonstrators have descended on the state Capitol in monumental protests that entered their ninth day Wednesday.
One of the 14, Sen. Jon Erpenbach, said from Chicago on Wednesday morning that the senators believe public opinion is on their side and that they don't intend to return until Walker is willing to accept a compromise.
The Assembly debate began around noon Tuesday, with lawmakers coming to the floor under heavy guard as protesters in the rotunda cheered and banged on buckets and bongo drums. Democrats introduced dozens of amendments and gave drawn-out, rambling speeches criticizing the bill. Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald said around 8 a.m. Wednesday - after 20 hours of debate - that he was working with Democratic leaders to take a vote on passing the bill by the end of the day.
"We could get there later tonight," Fitzgerald said.
Democrats didn't have enough votes to get their amendments adopted, so much of the time was spent dissecting the bills and playing to the thousands of protesters who watched the start of the debate on monitors in the rotunda.
"Can you hear that?" Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee, screamed into her microphone. "Can you hear the cheers? Can you hear the chants? Can you hear the voices of the people who elected you? How can you not hear that?"
Republicans sat mostly in silence as the debate dragged into the wee hours, though tempers flared when two Democrats lashed out at Republican lawmakers and aides for laughing at them during the debate.
"This is not a game! We're dealing with people's lives! This isn't funny!" Rep. Andy Jorgensen, D-Fort Atkinson, shouted in the chamber, his face red. "I haven't laughed in a long time, especially not on a day like this!"
At one point, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, stood and told Democrats that the state can't afford collective bargaining. Walker's budget, which the governor plans to introduce in the coming weeks, will contain such deep cuts to local governments that they won't be able to survive if public workers don't make concessions, Fitzgerald said.
Dressed in orange T-shirts proclaiming they were fighting for working families, Democrats introduced 66 amendments, with more than half coming after midnight, and promised more were on the way.
Democrats offered to adjourn shortly before 3 a.m., Republicans - who easily have enough votes to pass the bill once they have disposed of the Democrats' amendments - refused and began the long grind of voting each change down one by one.
"We understand. You don't like the bill. We get it," Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, said. "(But) at the end of the day the vote has got to come, folks."
The bill would require most public sector workers, from local librarians to state biologists, to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also would strip them of their right to collectively bargain anything except salaries. Walker has said the plan is crucial to solving a $137 million deficit in the state's current budget and a $3.6 billion shortfall in the 2011-13 budget.
The state's public sector unions have said they would agree to the financial concessions, but won't give up their bargaining rights.
Thousands have rallied to the unions' side, converging on the Capitol day after day demanding Walker's removal. The demonstrations have left the Capitol a mess. The normally sparkling floors are smeared with dirt, protesters' signs cover the marble walls, air mattresses and blankets lay in hallways and state troopers guard every corridor, limiting movement in the building.
Similar battles over union rights are also taking shape in other states. In Indiana, Democrats walked out of the House on Tuesday, blocking a GOP-backed bill against mandatory union dues. They have threatened not to return until Republican lawmakers deliver assurances that they won't move forward on labor legislation.
A similar debate in Ohio drew thousands of union protesters Tuesday, prompting officials there to lock the doors to the Statehouse.
In Wisconsin, Walker tried to turn up the pressure on missing Democrats on Tuesday, saying if lawmakers can't pass the measure by the end of the week the state won't be able to refinance debt to generate $165 million in savings. He warned that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if the bill isn't passed soon. However, existing union contracts could forestall the layoffs for weeks or months, and Walker wouldn't say which jobs he would go after first.
Borrowing the strategy pioneered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Walker took his case straight to the voters with a speech from his Capitol office that he called a "fireside chat." With protesters drowning out his message as it was played over monitors in the rotunda, Walker calmly laid out his case for the bill, saying it was needed to balance the state's budget now and into the future.
"It certainly isn't a battle with unions," Walker said. "If it was, we would have eliminated collective bargaining entirely or we would have gone after the private-sector unions."
One of the missing Democrats, Minority Leader Mark Miller, delivered a response from Illinois.
"The only action available to us to slow this down and allow democracy to work was to take us out of the Capitol," he said.
Republicans sat mostly in silence as the debate dragged into the wee hours, though tempers flared when two Democrats lashed out at Republican lawmakers and aides for laughing at them during the debate.
"This is not a game! We're dealing with people's lives! This isn't funny!" Rep. Andy Jorgensen, D-Fort Atkinson, shouted in the chamber, his face red. "I haven't laughed in a long time, especially not on a day like this!"
At one point, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, stood and told Democrats that the state can't afford collective bargaining. Walker's budget, which the governor plans to introduce in the coming weeks, will contain such deep cuts to local governments that they won't be able to survive if public workers don't make concessions, Fitzgerald said.
Dressed in orange T-shirts proclaiming they were fighting for working families, Democrats introduced 66 amendments, with more than half coming after midnight, and promised more were on the way.
Democrats offered to adjourn shortly before 3 a.m., Republicans - who easily have enough votes to pass the bill once they have disposed of the Democrats' amendments - refused and began the long grind of voting each change down one by one.
"We understand. You don't like the bill. We get it," Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, said. "(But) at the end of the day the vote has got to come, folks."
The bill would require most public sector workers, from local librarians to state biologists, to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also would strip them of their right to collectively bargain anything except salaries. Walker has said the plan is crucial to solving a $137 million deficit in the state's current budget and a $3.6 billion shortfall in the 2011-13 budget.
The state's public sector unions have said they would agree to the financial concessions, but won't give up their bargaining rights.
Thousands have rallied to the unions' side, converging on the Capitol day after day demanding Walker's removal. The demonstrations have left the Capitol a mess. The normally sparkling floors are smeared with dirt, protesters' signs cover the marble walls, air mattresses and blankets lay in hallways and state troopers guard every corridor, limiting movement in the building.
wisconsinrapidstribune.com, Wed Feb 23 2011
Byline: Todd Richmond, Associated Press
Walkom: The seductive appeal of union-busting
In fact, what's going on in Wisconsin should be of real interest to Ontarians. It is an extraordinary story of how a state renowned for its moderate - even leftish - views has decided to solve its fiscal problems by destroying public sector unions.
Like Ontario, Wisconsin has traditionally been home to a conservative kind of progressivism. It pioneered political party reform and workers' compensation legislation.
In 1924, its most famous populist, Republican Sen. Robert (Fighting Bob) La Follette, ran for president on the Progressive ticket.
In the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama carried Wisconsin handily.
But like the rest of North America, Wisconsin suffered from the recession and subsequent slowdown. Its unemployment rate rose; its tax revenues declined. A small state (its population is 5.6 million), its biennial deficit is expected to rise to $3.6 billion by 2011-13.
In relative terms, that's not extreme (Ontario, with a population of 13 million, projects a current annual deficit of $18.7 billion). But it was enough to cause the state's voters to elect hard-line Republican Scott Walker as governor last fall.
Campaigning on a platform of smaller government, Walker promised both $2 billion in tax cuts and a balanced budget. Aided by a Republican-dominated legislature, he has delivered tax cuts - which, of course, promise to increase future deficits. How then to balance the budget?
One part of the governor's solution will be familiar to those who watch Ontario politics. Like Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak, Walker has pledged to end subsidies to green energy projects.
But his real focus is on teachers and others who make up the state's 175,000-person unionized workforce.
Walker wants state workers to pay a higher share of their pension and benefit costs. They've agreed.
Beyond that, however, he wants to effectively gut their unions. Under proposed legislation affecting all state employees - with the significant exception of firefighters and police - hard-won collective bargaining rights would be scaled back to 19th-century levels.
First, workers would be forbidden from negotiating anything other than wages. Issues such as pensions, benefits, working conditions and even holidays would be out of bounds.
Second, wages could rise no more than the cost of living. So even where they could negotiate, unions would have little to talk about.
Third, all contracts would be limited to one year. Bargaining units would require annual certification votes and the payment of dues would become voluntary - moves designed to make the very existence of unions more difficult.
It was the anti-union nature of Walker's so-called budget repair act that caused the state's Democratic senators to flee to Illinois, thereby denying the quorum that would allow this legislation to pass.
But they can't stay away forever. Unless Walker relents - and there's no sign of that - Wisconsin's path-breaking attack on unions seems likely to succeed.
Thanks to a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that protects certain union rights, cash-strapped governments in this country will not be able to copy the governor's exact formula. But political parties here are always on the outlook for bold new ideas from their American cousins. I expect Hudak in particular is watching events in Wisconsin with great interest.
Toronto Star, Wed Feb 23 2011
Byline: Thomas Walkom
CLC Statement on Wisconsin State Attacking Collective Bargaining Rights
If enacted, the proposed legislation will have grave repercussions for all workers and citizens in Wisconsin and well beyond the state if attempted elsewhere. This represents more than a removal of collective bargaining rights from public sector workers. It would destroy a social contract that has stood the test of time. If the citizens of Wisconsin view this as a model for how an employer can act, then all workers in the state, private as well as public, unionized and non-unionized, are in peril.
Under the proposed legislation, all working conditions, health and safety and worker's compensation provisions, leave entitlements, seniority rules, equality provisions, grievance procedures, representation rights, pensions and benefits would no longer be negotiated. Real salary increases would have to be put to a referendum.
The legislation would also require union members to hold annual votes on whether to remain in the union, make the payment of union dues voluntary and increase worker contributions to state pension plans. In addition, the legislation proposes to cut benefits to Medicaid for all retirees and other beneficiaries of public health care, and to sell key public utilities.
On behalf of the 3.2 million unionized workers in Canada, the CLC deplores this effort to end free collective bargaining in a jurisdiction that was the cradle of public sector bargaining in the United States. The CLC is appalled at this effort to discredit public sector workers and blame our U.S. brothers and sisters for the fiscal pressures faced by all levels of governments. This is not only immoral, but is contrary to U.S. commitments to international law and to the International Labour Organization.
It was not public sector workers and their collective agreements that caused the fiscal deficit faced by Wisconsin. The state's fiscal crisis has its roots in the financial crisis and resulting economic devastation that the United States has not yet recovered from. Only a few weeks ago, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the economic crisis was caused by failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and irresponsible risk-taking in the financial sector. The Commission concluded that the financial crisis was completely avoidable.
Wisconsin's fiscal troubles will not be solved by stripping public sector workers of their rights. The legislation is, however, designed to weaken unions over the long term. Despite massive opposition to this draconian legislation, Republican legislators intend to pursue their course, and Ohio and other U.S. states are considering similar action. This assault on long accepted collective agreements would be disastrous for all workers and for citizens, who depend on quality public services.
The Canadian Labour Congress stands in solidarity with its brothers and sisters in the United States as they work to defeat this alarming legislative initiative.
www.clc-ctc.ca
Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved
The Keystone XL pipeline, awaiting a thumbs up or down on a presidential permit, would increase the import of heavy oil from Canada's oil sands to the U.S. by as much as 510,000 barrels a day, if it gets built.
Proponents tout it as a boon to national security that would reduce America's dependence on oil from unfriendly regimes. Opponents say it would magnify an environmental nightmare at great cost and provide only the illusion of national benefit.
What's been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda.
The two brothers together own virtually all of Koch Industries Inc. - a giant oil conglomerate headquartered in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenues estimated to be $100 billion.
A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.
A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers.
Flint Hills Resources Canada also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
The company's website says it is "among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters." Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum properties.
Waging War on Obama
The Koch brothers are not run-of-the-mill political opponents. An investigative report last year by the New Yorker magazine on the secretive and deep-pocketed pair have shown them to be "waging a war against Obama." They have bankrolled the Tea Party movement, climate change skepticism and right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Through Flint Hills Resources LP based in Wichita, Kan., the Koch brothers provided $1 million in 2010 to the failed effort to suspend California's groundbreaking 2006 global warming law.
After the 2010 midterm elections, they have become established at the center of GOP power, according to The Los Angeles Times. The paper reported this week that Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
That includes the campaign coffers of the new committee chairman, Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who though once a moderate is now leading the anti-regulatory charge in the Republican-dominated House.
Hearings in his committee began yesterday on a bill to roll back EPA's regulatory power over carbon dioxide, a power which has been affirmed by the both the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Bush's EPA.
SolveClimate, Thurs Feb 10 2011
Byline: David Sassoon
Alberta labour group calls for end to temporary foreign workers program
CALGARY — Fraud charges against a Calgary woman who headed a group for foreign workers have the Alberta Federation of Labour calling on the government to scrap the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
"There is a clear and obvious lack of oversight of the TFW program that can lead to appalling abuse of workers," AFL president Gil McGowan said Tuesday.
"The TFW program isn't working for foreign workers, it isn't working for Alberta workers and it isn't working for employers. It's time to admit the program is a failure and replace it with real immigration."
McGowan pointed out that Auditor-General Sheila Fraser panned the program in her 2009 report, saying there has been no systematic follow-up to ensure employers are complying with the terms under which the Labour Mobility Opinion application was approved, such as wages to be paid and accommodations to be provided.
Red Deer Advocate, Wedn., June 13, 2012