A tale of Two Debates – some thoughts

By Scott Marshall

The Democratic Debate

When John Edwards announced that he was suspending his bid for president, he said that he was proud of his campaign’s contribution to the presidential debates and its influence on the other Democratic party candidates. But, he said, it was time to get out of the way of history.

A turning point on history’s path took place in the Los Angeles debate last Thursday at the Kodak Theater between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Even before the debate began the voltage was high. The auditorium was packed with a great cross section of the vast democratic coalition that wants to defeat and roll back eight years of Bush and rightwing Republican domination. And yes they were equally divided between those who held up Hillary signs and those who held up Obama signs.

Even before either candidate walked on the stage the air was pregnant with hope, enthusiasm, energy and optimism. And though the TV cameras tended to focus on celebrities, the crowd was labor, all races and nationalities, women and men, gay and straight, and pumped for change. The crowd resembled those in the historic high voter turnout in the Democratic party primaries so far. They were union activists, peace activists, environmental activists, civil rights and immigrant rights activists, women’s right activists and health care activists. They were plain folks alarmed at the economic crisis and they were anti-poverty activists. And, again, they held up both Obama and Clinton signs.

Both candidates opened the debate noting the road of history that Edwards mentioned. Both beamed with pride and celebrated the fact that no matter who won the Democratic nomination, history would be made – that no matter who won, a great barrier to democracy is being broken – the first African American man or the first women will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

And as they say, the crowd went wild. And the atmosphere stayed like that throughout the debate. The greatest applause, the greatest enthusiasm and energy, exploded when either candidate mentioned the historic nature of the moment or slammed the Bush administration and the Republican rightwing. The debate was substantive, positive, change oriented and unifying.

And, most important of all, the debate left the audience feeling confident and ready to go. That no matter who won the nomination, the vast movement that has produced and shaped both of these campaigns, including the campaigns of those who have dropped out, is a movement united and in fighting trim for the November elections.

The Republican Debate

Now contrast the Democratic debate with the Republican debate at the Reagan Library just two days before. Here the Blue Stocking, Republican elite sat in a big hanger-like room with a huge airplane. It had all the atmosphere of the Roman Coliseum in the final decadent days of the empire. The crowd politely waited for the bloodletting. And they got their money’s worth.

McCain and Romney went at each other. Though not like gladiators and lions, but more like adolescents at a rich kids high school fighting over who gets to escort the Prom Queen. And while they bickered and glared over who said what and when, Huckabee and Ron Paul pouted on the sidelines.

The audience was divided. Cheers on one side when Romney scored a gotcha, and shouts when McCain landed a zinger. Who could be the meanest and toughest? Who would be harsher? Who could deliver the most tax cuts for the wealthy and big business? Who would stay in Iraq longer with the biggest military occupation force. Though there was a moment of interesting applause when kooky Ron Paul chastised McCain and Romney for wanting to be the “cops of the world.” Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The Republican debate showed the Republicans in disarray and decline – a big business, anti-labor, anti-people, ultra right coalition splintering.

November

Nothing can be taken for granted and much can change between now and November. But this “tale of two debates” snapshot is laden with lessons. As of now twenty-eight Republicans in Congress are not running again - rats deserting a sinking ship. A time when the ultra right can be most dangerous. But, also a time when they are in disarray and can be defeated.

Still, unity and the energy and the enthusiasm of all the democratic (small “d”) forces are necessary for change. Many of us see Obama as the candidate with the most potential. In Illinois we have seen him on the front lines for labor and working people many times, like marching on picketlines for health care workers and strongly making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act. Still, the left and labor cannot afford to invest all its capital in a single candidate in any way that closes the door or dampens the ardor of any other part of the movement that is developing for change. Clinton’s campaign also represents vital sectors of the core democratic forces in motion.

No matter who wins the Democratic primary, the people's movements will need the full support of all the other candidates and their backers. No single candidate has a monopoly on the movements and the drive and determination that it will take to win. Most of the other candidates in the Democratic race, especially Kucinich, Edwards and Richardson, represent a vital section of the coalition that it will take to win.

At this point either remaining candidate has the potential to be a transformative figure in a transformative moment. That depends most on unifying the main movements and forces for change and on how much energy and mass participation can be generated for winning in November. But no single candidate’s movement alone - no matter how dynamic - can win in November on its own. This was the great lead that both Democratic candidates gave their supporters in the Los Angeles debate.

Fight on the issues, build the movements for change, support the candidate you feel best moves things forward. But most of all build the bridges of unity that can defeat the right in November and open the door on a new era of change and progress for labor and the people.

Note: Scott Marshall is a Coordinator for USW District 7 Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees

You Owe It To Your Grandchildren To Tell Them The Truth About Social Security

President George W. Bush wants to convince people in their 20s that Social Security will not be there when they retire. It’s a lot easier to take something away from people if they don’t think they are going to get it anyway. He hopes you, your children, and your grandchildren won’t fight his privatization plan, which he isn’t telling anyone will drastically cut benefits.

Don’t fall for it.

WHAT GEORGE BUSH DOESN’T WANT YOUNG PEOPLE TO KNOW…

If you want to receive less money when you retire, then Social Security privatization is right for you!

• Young workers today would lose about $152,000 in benefits under the leading privatization plan.

• Workers who earn $58,560 today would face a 25% benefit cut if they retire in 2045 and a 42% benefit cut if they retire in 2075.

If you like the idea of supporting your elderly parents, then Social Security privatization is right for you!

• Privatization will cut benefits, shrink nest eggs and create the risk of poor investments.

If you welcome shouldering an additional $2.2 trillion in debt, then Social Security privatization is right for you!

• Establishing private accounts would require more than $2 trillion in new borrowing over just the next ten years.

Source: Alliance for Retired Americans

This is......For Elaine

John McCain is Dr. Strangelove

Rebuilding the Labor Movement

By Lynn R. Williams

Prostrating himself before the rich, manipulating rules of free enterprise to benefit the few at the top, President Bush has bungled America's economy the way he did most of the businesses he managed before taking political office. Now, he's pushing a stimulus package that's essentially hush money -- some cash intended to mollify and silence the middle class.

It won't, however, provide immediate help to those most in need -- the poor desperate for a few more food stamps or the unemployed seeking an extension of unemployment compensation -- the very sort of aid that the Congressional Budget Office ranked as more effective than tax rebates for stimulating the economy.

In addition, Bush's plan, the one he pushed in his State of the Union address Monday night, won't accomplish any long-term, significant goals for this country. The kind of objectives that President Franklin D. Roosevelt set with his Works Progress Administration. The WPA employed people. They constructed public structures that can still be seen today across America. They added enduring value to this country. The combined effect of employment and construction stimulated the economy.

It wasn't a quick fix. But the Congressional Budget Office doesn't believe the tax rebates will be quick, possibly arriving in citizens' hands in July, are necessarily a fix.

This, really, is nothing more than a contemptible attempt to repair the deep damage done by 30 years of bad economic policies. The Reagan/Bush economic practices have shredded the social safety nets that were so carefully crafted over the post war progressive era, from FDR's New Deal through the Civil Rights Act and Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.

The worst excesses of the past, those that FDR railed against, those that separated working people from the truly wealthy, have grown exponentially.

As the economy sours, as discontent with the treasury-draining war in Iraq rises, and as Americans increasingly lay blame for the country's woes on the failed political policy of catering to corporations, it's time for progressives to develop their own vision for the future.

Three objectives should dominate in plans for a new progressive era.

First, life should provide a reasonable level of economic security for all. People should be confident that their basic needs will be met, where their next meal will come from, where they will lay their heads at night.

Beyond that there should be opportunity -- opportunity to live life more fully, to grow one's talents, to accumulate more of this world's goods, to contribute more to humankind's knowledge and accomplishments.

And lastly, there should be an emphasis on quality -- quality in everything we do, we build, we create, we present.

The concept of economic security is best expressed by FDR. In 1941, he said the United States looked forward to a world founded on four essential freedoms. They were freedom of speech and to worship, but also freedom from want and from fear. He said freedom from want meant that in peacetime, a nation had an obligation to seek healthy lives for its citizens.

This surely means the availability of decent jobs and the existence of a decent minimum wage and minimum level of vacation and benefits. Certainly the right to health care would be part of any civilized definition of freedom from want or economic security.

My own experience with the evolution and provision of health care may prove instructive, as I was in Canada during the time the national program developed there.

It works marvelously well from the experience of my family. My mother lived in a nursing home for the last ten years of her life, and it cost only the difference between a double room and her single. Three of my four children and their families live under it, and it has been just fine (the fourth lives out of the country). I have been living under it again since returning to Canada after my retirement as president of the Steelworkers and have yet to pay a cent for a covered service, which is virtually everything.

It is truly universal. It is paid for out of tax revenue. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it is much less expensive than the world's highest percentage of GDP spent on health care in the United States. The U.S. spends $6,102 per person as compared to Canada's $3,165. Yet, the results are measurably better in Canada, where there is greater longevity and lower infant mortality.

Every advanced country in the world, with the exception only of the U.S., has some version of a public health insurance plan. None is perfect, but what system is? Virtually all have better statistics than the U.S., are less costly, and provide care to everyone.

Another critically important element in economic security is a reasonable minimum wage, a priority cruelly neglected in the U.S. The opposition always maintains that raising it will increase unemployment. A few years ago, Allan Kreuger a Princeton economist, and some of his colleagues examined the results of an increase in minimum wage among 330 fast food workers in New Jersey and another 80 plus in Pennsylvania, following an increase in the minimum wage in New Jersey to $5.50 an hour. The study found no evidence that it increased unemployment. A decent minimum should be established, and it should rise automatically with inflation.

Wages, of course, aren't helpful without job security. In recent years, the outsourcing of jobs through so-called free trade has eroded all employment security in the U.S. So much of what is talked about as free trade really is not trade at all, in the sense of the classical economists. Instead it is nothing more than the outsourcing of jobs to be performed offshore for unbelievably lower wages with the goods or services then shipped back, with a devastating impact on economic security. It is not unusual to see the entire economic base of a community wiped out in this way.

Many of these arrangements are with countries that have authoritarian governments, manipulating their unions and controlling wages and conditions, so that anything resembling what the theoreticians describe as free trade in not remotely possible. One cannot have free trade with slave societies.

A new progressive era must deal effectively with all these issues. What is needed is to use the leverage of market access to raise wages in the developing countries, so that they may embark on the path, not of being destitute consumers, but of becoming income-earning producers and therefore customers of their own products. Then they can also become customers on the world stage. They can then maintain jobs in the producing countries, not undercutting and destroying them, but rather enabling all countries to become buyers and sellers, to go about looking for new creative ways to be productive.

This dynamic cannot be overemphasized. Circumstances such as exist in Nigeria where the delta, rich with oil, provides virtually no benefits to the local population, or in the mineral-rich Congo, where the wealth disappears in corruption, both local and international, greatly exacerbate all the problems and do nothing to relieve any of them. If the citizens of these countries were sharing in the wealth of their own resources, they could be significant customers, making an enormous contribution to the well-being of their own people and of people around the world.

What labor seeks is fair trade agreements that include guarantees of human rights, of the right to organize and bargain collectively, that require environmental standards and safety and health standards. If we can protect intellectual property rights in trade agreements, as we do, we can protect human rights and the environment.

A new progressive era also requires that the labor movement be rebuilt and restored to its counterbalancing position in our society. The attack on the movement in the private sector over the past 30 years has had destructive results for everybody. It is instructive that the corporations buying up our companies come in many instances from countries where the labor movement's role in economic and social decision making is much more accepted as the way businesses operate. This is true across Europe and in Brazil, where the president of the country is the former president of the Metalworkers Union.

There is really only one institution that represents the democratically determined voice of the people in economic matters and that is the labor movement. That is why economies are more balanced, inequality is more contained and pressures to help the less fortunate are more sustained in those societies where there is a vigorous and strong labor movement.

Rebuilding the labor movement and, and the same time, ensuring that this country sustains manufacturing jobs will provide opportunities for all Americans that are essential to maintaining a solid middle class.

Lastly, in this new progressive era, there is the issue of quality, a word that encompasses a number of ideas. If we are to give our beautiful environment on planet Earth its proper respect, the reckless and wasteful use of resources of all kinds that has been a hallmark of so much of our economy must be significantly modified. This leads directly to the quality of the processes of production, in that use should be made through participative structures of the talents of all who are involved, including the union, and careful attention given to establishing and maintaining safe conditions and protection against occupational disease.

For some time now, the wonders of technology have led to speculation that human labor might be reduced, since so much abundance can be produced so efficiently. Still, Americans, living in the richest country on the face of the globe, have until recently worked the longest hours. Maybe now the congruence of such challenging developments as the potential destruction of our environment, the toxicity of some resources, and the shortage of others will motivate our society to look in some new and higher quality directions for the joys and satisfactions of life.

One can imagine a new flourishing of mankind's artistic, scientific and athletic talents, given the combination of basic security, fine educational opportunities and experiences, and the emphasis on quality envisaged in this new progressive agenda.

These are the areas in which our restless and competitive energies should be focused, not in warfare with each other, not in the exploitation of the weakest by the strongest, but in the leadership of the strongest in building a new global era worthy of the best of humankind's gifts and talents.

Note: Lynn Williams is President Emeritus of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees

Do You Care?

It's January 31, 2008 and 28 brave U.S. soldiers died this month in Iraq.

What Have The Unions Ever Done For Us?

How the Country Has Come to Find Itself in the Current Ecomomic Mess

By Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers Union

As the Senate moves to consider the wholly inadequate stimulus package passed by the House -- zip for the jobless, no increase in food stamps, squat for the nation's crumbling infrastructure -- it's useful to consider how the country has come to find itself in the current economic mess.

Part of the reason we need a "fiscal stimulus package" under what President Bush continues to claim is a strong economy is the bad behavior of a government operating in cahoots with corporate America over the past 30 years. This shameless cabal has given us a reckless stock market, a sub prime mortgage crisis that is taking down homeowners while threatening banks and insurers, health care and gasoline costs flaming out of control, an endless war that violates international law and savages the budget, rising unemployment and income inequality, and the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs that is undermining real wages.

This, as New York Times financial reporter David Cay Johnston points out in his new bestseller, Free Lunch, is not the America of FDR. It is not the America that nurtured a middle class from the time of the New Deal with Social Security, employer-paid health insurance and defined benefit pensions, and, later, low-cost college educations. This is not the America of investing tax revenue in programs to benefit the majority, like the U.S. interstate highway system, and in regulation to benefit the majority, like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (a chicken coop now being "guarded" by a fox formerly employed by the corporate-dominated U.S. Chamber of Commerce).

That America is gone. Ronald Reagan got on his high horse, cracked his whip and told those little doggies to move along. Since then, income disparity in this country has grown so that in 2005, Johnston reports in Free Lunch, if you consider all income, the 300,000 wealthiest men, women and children, the top one tenth of one percent, made more money than all the other 150 million Americans put together.

This concentration of income at the top does not occur in places like Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia. It does, however, in places like Brazil, Mexico and Russia, Johnston points out.

And what makes it happen is government rules. Your government's rules. The government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people.

In Free Lunch, Johnston explains how this happens, "When an executive shortchanges the pension plan, making his company appear to be more profitable, he inflates the value of the company stock and therefore his stock options. When the pension later fails and the workers get less than what they were due, or the taxpayers have to make up the part of the shortfall guaranteed by the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the executives get a free lunch. Our economy is riddled with these subsidies, many of which are intentionally subtle and hard to detect."

The book also explains how George W. Bush managed to use millions in Texans' tax dollars to make his fortune on the purchase and sale of the Rangers baseball team, and then call a white-tie audience, he referred to as " my base" at a fund raiser at a Waldorf-Astoria dinner in 2000, the "haves and have mores."

This isn't how most citizens imagine their tax dollars are going to be used -- to fatten the pockets of the wealthy. But here's the problem: The wealthy purchase the services of lobbyists and put lots of money into lawmakers' campaign coffers. By contrast, the average citizen may send the Congressman an e-mail once in a two-year term.

Under Reaganomics, money was supposed to trickle down to the workers. What trickled down was broken promises, closed factories, collapsed pension funds, withdrawn health care, and foreclosed homes. Reagan asked if we were better off than we were four years earlier.

Now, as Johnston points out, we should be asking: are we better off 30 years later? The answer is a thundering NO.

And the solution is not a piddling $150 billion fiscal stimulus package that helps those who don't need it much and provides no help at all to those who need it most.

For quick infusion of cash into the economy, a stimulus package must extend unemployment benefits and increase food stamps. In addition to being moral measures to help the most needy, these ideas were endorsed by the Congressional Budget Office as among the best ways to immediately stimulate the economy.

Beyond extending the length of time that unemployment benefits are given, the amount should be increased by at least $50 a week. Eligibility for the program should be expanded as well.

In addition, a payroll tax rebate would provide more effective relief to those most in need. This would target the very low income taxpayer. And it would provide a stark contrast -- though not a counterbalance because they'd never be large enough -- to those massive tax cuts Bush and the Republican Congress gave to the richest Americans at the outset of his Administration.

And, finally, the program needs to invest in a plan to Rebuild America, something akin to Roosevelt's WPA program. The effects of this may take longer to realize. But the damage done to this economy didn't occur overnight either. And the long-term needs of this country's infrastructure are real, as the collapse of the I-35W Bridge into the Mississippi in Minneapolis last August illustrated so horribly. Fixing the nation's bridges, roads, dams, sewers and other municipal buildings and facilities would provide jobs and enduring benefits to the great majority of Americans, not to mention radically reducing energy consumption by retrofitting the nation's publicly-owned buildings.

Better yet, commit to a decade-long investment in renewable energy development that will give meaningful work to millions while addressing the growing hazard of global warming.

If oil companies making the biggest profits in the history of the planet weren't getting "free lunches" in the form of multi-billion-dollar tax breaks, such progressive policies might provide the sort of stimulus that an all-too-timid Congress seems unwilling to consider.

Jill Long Thompson for Indiana

On Friday, January 25, 2008, the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees Chapter 30-18 composed of union retirees of the Northern Indiana Public Service Company unanimously endorsed Jill Long Thompson for Governor of Indiana.

During her many years in public life, Jill Long Thompson has built an impressive record as a fighter for working families and as an advocate for responsive, responsible government. Inspired to politics as a youth, Long Thompson served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana's 4th Congressional District from 1989 to 1995. Long Thompson spent more than five years as U.S. Under Secretary of Agriculture from 1995 to 2001.

In Congress, Long Thompson compiled a pragmatic voting record by opposing all new tax increases while protecting investments in education, Medicare, and Social Security. Long Thompson also served as Vice Chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, a Democratic policy organization.

Long Thompson's first election to Congress in 1989 made national headlines because Indiana's 4th Congressional District was considered a "safe" Republican seat once held by then Vice President Dan Quayle. Long Thompson, then known as Jill Long, easily won re-election in 1990 and 1992 despite being a top Republican target for defeat.

As Under Secretary of Agriculture for rural development, Long Thompson managed 7,000 employees and a $10 billion budget, which funded rural housing, cooperative, water/waste, and business programs. Among her accomplishments as Under Secretary were reforming the single-family loan program, helping create thousands of jobs in economically challenged communities, and improving the efficiency of the Department.

Jill Long Thompson, 54, grew up on the family farm outside of Larwill in Whitley County. She lives with her husband Don Thompson, a commercial airline pilot, in Marshall County on a farm near Argos. Most recently, Long Thompson served as CEO and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.

Jill Long Thompson was the first in her family to graduate from college. She earned an M.B.A. (1978) and Ph.D (1984) in Business from Indiana University, and a B.S. in Business from Valparaiso University (1974).

After leaving Congress in early 1995 and before becoming Under Secretary of Agriculture, Long Thompson served as a Fellow at the Institute of Politics in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Prior to her election to Congress, Long Thompson was an Assistant Professor of Business Administration at Valparaiso University, an Adjunct Professor at Indiana University/Purdue University-Fort Wayne, and a lecturer at Indiana University in Bloomington.

She also served as the Mark E. Johnston Chair of Entrepreneurship at Manchester College and as Adjunct Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University South Bend.

We need a Governor who will stand up for working families and retirees once again. Jill has a proven track record of doing just that, and I'm very pleased to be able to make this announcement.

Another NIPSCO NiSource Blunder

The NIPSCO NiSource Runaround

NIPSCO……….

Pay death benefits in a timely manner.

What do you think a death benefit is for, anyway?

Is this another job you’ve outsourced to Costa Rica?

Pay the lousy death benefits!

Learn to have a little empathy or compassion for crying out loud.

You know the one I'm referring to.

Pay it quick cause I'm pissed!

Watch in Awe at Fools at Work...

Bungling Baffoons

NIPSCO safety

January 24, 2008

On January 23, 2008, a call out took place in the Gary LOA at midnight, for a hit 34kv pole on 5th Ave., east of Tennessee St. along the South Shore Railroad right-of-way. Three spans of static wire (Copper weld 3 #8’s) and one span of 34 kv conductor (336.9 mcm) were down, the pole was not broken. The South Shore equipment attached to the pole consisted of a #6 copper 2300 volt DC signal conductor, and a 1500 volt DC main conductor. Three spans of the #6 copper 2300 volt South Shore conductor were on the ground. The 1500 volt conductor was intact.

The original repair crew consisted of six members, four journeymen and two apprentices. Another journeyman and an apprentice joined in later. The South Shore repair crew was already on-site when the NIPSCO crew arrived, and they informed the NIPSCO crew that the South Shore lines were cleared.

The NIPSCO crew was informed that because of the heavy volume of commuter traffic, they would have to clear off the South Shore right-of-way from 4:30 am until 7:10 am. This would allow South Shore trains to travel safely through the work area.

After the 7:10 am train passed through the work area, the NIPSCO crew pulled in the new static conductor, using stringing blocks at the pole locations. A NIPSCO lineman was attempting to “land” the new static conductor tail into the back-to-back dead-end shoe when a ball of fire was created. At various contact points along the three spans, the new static conductor was in contact with the South Shore cantenary wire (1500 volts) and several electrical contacts occurred. All of the linemen working with the static conductor were wearing their rubber gloves.

The on-site South Shore supervisor continued to believe that both South Shore lines were cleared and de-energized. This was verified through his dispatcher. The South Shore supervisor told the NIPSCO crew that the contact was nothing more than five miles of static induced electricity. Eventually, a South Shore lineman performed a voltage test on the 1500 volt line and determined that it was energized.

It was later determined that switching equipment at the South Shore substation had failed. It must be noted that the South Shore crew did not ground their lines. At various times, NIPSCO linemen throughout the territory work on the South Shore right-of-way. Please keep this incident in mind as a safety reminder!
Source: Local 12775

Iraq War

Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq prior to President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003
139

Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq as of January 3, 2008
3,907

Number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq prior to "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003
542

Number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq as of January 2, 2008
28,661

Number of Iraqi deaths after the U.S. invasion
1,139,602

Source: iCasualties.org. "Iraq Coalition Casualty Count." January 3, 2008; Just Foreign Policy. "Iraqi Deaths Due to U.S. Invasion." January 3, 2008.

Martin Luther King Jr. "I Have a Dream"

Out of Irack and into Iran

Toxic Toys Rally

It's time that our legislators wake up to the fact that lousy trade deals are killing our children. Those who don't wake up and do something about it, will soon bite the dust because we all deserve better.

Stop Importing Toxic Products

Thousands of Steelworkers. One hundred congressional offices. One union. One day.

Today, January 16, members of the United Steelworkers and its allies will take its “Stop Toxic Imports” campaign to the nation’s policymakers. In this National Day of Action, the union will demand that Congress take immediate action to protect Americans from the dangerous threat posed by the millions of lead-laced toys and other unsafe products infiltrating our country.

The USW will be joined by dozens of allied community, environmental and health organizations from across the country, as well as the AFL-CIO and other labor groups.

“The massive toy recalls this holiday season drew attention to the much larger problem of the countless dangerous imports – tires, toothpaste, fake drugs, pet food – making their way on to U.S. store shelves,” said USW President Leo W. Gerard, who has spearheaded the USW “Protect Our Kids – Stop Toxic Imports” campaign. “People are starting to realize that we’re paying the price for cheap, imported goods so corporations can make bigger profits. It’s time for our policymakers to fix this broken trade system, repair our regulatory agencies and protect our jobs and families.”

The USW is calling for support for the U.S. Food and Product Responsibility Act, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and in the House by Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind. This legislation would safeguard Americans against toxic food and products by shifting the responsibility on to the backs of the companies producing the goods and the importers importing them.
The USW is not alone in demanding change. Check out this “Sound Off” video where consumers give policymakers a piece of their minds when it comes to the toxic trade crisis.

Edwards speaks to the Issues

To see John's position on the issues that no other candidate is talking about,
click here.

Crossword Puzzle

What the heck, why not give this crossword puzzle a shot.
It's located here.

We're in Good Hands with the next generation

While in Dubuque, Iowa, helping our union with the John Edwards campaign, Jessie DuBois (right) was our Coordinator. Jessie is a “Casual” employee for the USW, but she did a great job of directing us all.

Kaitlin DeCero, (left) was an intern at the USW International in Pittsburgh last year. Kaitlin came to Dubuque during her Christmas break and was a natural when it came to phone calling and door knocking. She is a Labor Studies student at Indiana University.

Kaitlin is from Munster, Indiana, and Jessie is from Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Both of these young people gave me assurance that our Great Union will be around for a very long time.

Keep up to date with our favorite candidate

This Song Says it All!

I just can't help myself. My favorite song just tells it like it is.

More Photos from Iowa

Photos taken in Iowa during the month of December can be found:

Here

and also:

Here

Happy New Year from Dubuque

After a long day of door knocking and phone calling in Dubuque, Iowa, Steelworkers, SOAR members, and friends of labor, take time out to ring in the new year.

Photos from Dubuque, Iowa

SOAR members and Steelworkers are working in Dubuque, Iowa, volunteering with the John Edwards campaign. After long hours of door knocking, leafleting, mailing, and phone calling, they sometimes find time to relax and share the days accomplishments.

Some photos taken of this group of volunteers can be seen by clicking here.

Edwards Moving up in the polls with help from Steelworkers and SOAR

Steelworkers and members of SOAR brave the Iowa cold to support John Edwards for President. This photo was taken in Dubuque, Iowa. All those pictured are from Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Steelworkers and members of SOAR (Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees) greet John Edwards in Dubuque, Iowa as he continues his travels throughout the state in his bid for President of the United States. Both organizations have endorsed John because of his positions on issues affecting working families and retirees.

John Edwards, "A Fight I Was Born For"

Steelworkers and SOAR members in Iowa

Go to the following website to follow the USW's efforts in electing John Edwards as the Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election.

www.activistcorps.org

New USW Local 12775 Website

USW Local 12775 has a new website. Be sure to check it out here.

Iowans--Go to caucus January 3!!

Smart And Safe Trade Policies-John Edwards

"Behind all these numbers and statistics are the faces of millions of Americans forgotten in our trade deals. Well, I can tell you that I will never forget them. I saw what happened when the mill that my dad worked in all his life, and where I worked myself when I was young, closed and the jobs went somewhere else. It wasn't just devastating to our community economically - it was devastating to the pride and dignity of the people who worked hard every day trying to make a better life for their Kids."
(Remarks on "Smart Trade that Puts Workers First," August 6, 2007)

"If we want trade policies that work for working Americans, we need John Edwards. He's the only candidate with real plans to ensure that working families get their fair share of the benefits of economic growth."
-Leo Gerard, President, United Steelworkers

Toxic Toy Jingle

The Promise of America

“I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Like them, like you, I believe in people, hard work and the sacred obligation of each generation to the next."

“This is our time now. It falls to us to redeem our democracy, reclaim our government and relight the promise of America for our children.”

“We have to stop using words like ‘access to health care’ when we know those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without care? Which family? Which child? We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.

“I donʹt believe you can sit down at a table with lobbyists for drug companies and insurance companies and negotiate your way to universal care. They are dead‐set against this. Itʹs going to take a president who can take them on and beat them. Thatʹs what Iʹve been doing my whole life."

John Edwards

Source: The Plan to Build One America by John Edwards

What's The Most Important Meeting?

"The most important meeting.............is the meeting after the meeting"

Lynn Williams, SOAR President, Emeritus

John Edwards' Declaration of Independence For Older Americans

A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FOR
OLDER AMERICANS

“It’s time for a new kind of declaration of independence – a commitment to helping older Americans live independently, with choice over their health care, financial security and lifestyle. It’s not enough to congratulate ourselves on living longer, if we are not living stronger.

“Social Security is one of the most successful government programs in history, but it is also more than that – it is a promise between generations. I am committed to honoring the promise and protecting retirement benefits for working Americans.”

Summary

John Edwards’ agenda for older Americans is based on the values of security, dignity and choice to help every older American live as independently as they desire.

The Edwards Plan for Seniors

• Ensure financial independence
• Guarantee health security
• Promote living with dignity

Ensure Financial Independence

• Keep the promise of Social Security.
• Honor pension promises and help families save with a universal, portable retirement account.
• Fight predatory lenders.
• Preserve older Americans’ freedom to work.

Guarantee Health Security

• Protect the future of Medicare with cost‐effective health care reform that improves quality.
• Allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs with drug makers, address the “doughnut hole” in the drug benefit, give beneficiaries the choice of a public plan for their prescription drugs and permit safe drug reimportation from Canada.
• Train more doctors and nurses in geriatrics.

Promote Living With Dignity

• Edwards will promote the choice of home‐based care, supportive living options like senior villages and accessible transportation, while improving nursing homes and cracking down on elder abuse.

For John Edwards' full plan for older Americans, visit www.johnedwards.com/seniors

Source: John Edwards08, The Plan to Build One America, Bold Solutions for Real Change

John Edwards Plan to Build One America

Dear Friend:
America is facing great challenges. We need bold ideas for change that are equal to the problems we face. And especially now, our country needs to hear the truth from its leaders.

The truth is that Washington is broken – rigged by the powerful special interests and lobbyists to benefit the very few at the expense of the rest of us. Because our government no longer works for most families, we risk becoming the first generation of Americans that fails to pass on a better life to our children.

This is not the America I believe in. Together, we can reclaim our government and redeem the promise of America for our children. You have a uniquely important responsibility. You are the guardians not only of what kind of president we’ll have, but what kind of future we’ll leave to our children.

You deserve real substance, not mere rhetoric. By describing my detailed plans, I hope this will allow you to make an informed decision. It includes my proposals to:

End the War in Iraq: We should immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops and bring home the rest within nine to ten months. We also need a “diplomatic surge” to engage all nations in the region in reaching a political solution in Iraq.

Guarantee Universal Health Care: This is a moral issue. I will stand up to the big drug and insurance companies and guarantee health care for every American, while cutting costs and improving care. My plan costs $90 billion to $120 billion. To pay for it, I will repeal the Bush tax cuts for families above $200,000 a year.

Support Middle‐Class Families: I will raise the minimum wage, strengthen workers’ rights to organize and reject bad trade deals. I will help families save, cut taxes for middle‐class families, protect pensions and lift millions out of poverty.

Teach Our Children: We must end No Child Left Behind’s punitive approach and restore a comprehensive curriculum. I support universal early childhood education, smaller classes and better teacher pay. My College for Everyone plan will make college affordable for every student willing to work part‐time.

Achieve Energy Independence and Fight Global Warming: The crisis of global warming demands action today. I will cap and reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050, as scientists say is necessary, and invest in innovation and renewable energy to create new jobs that cannot be sent overseas.

Revitalize Rural America: My Rural Recovery Act will invest in local Main Street businesses, attract new industries like renewable energy and strengthen rural schools. I will stand up for family farms with country‐of‐origin labeling, antitrust enforcement, a ban on packer ownership and a moratorium on building or expanding concentrated animal feeding operations.

Together, we can – and will – redeem our country’s promise and our children’s future.

Source: excepts from John Edwads 08 The Plan to build One America
Bold Solutions for Real Change

John Edwards will Clean up the Mess

Gaining Union Recognition

Q. How do we organize our workplace?
A. First, employees sign “Union Authorization” Petitions which state they want to be represented by USW.
Once 65% of the employees indicate they want a union, the USW will seek recognition with your employer, which usually means holding a secret ballot election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to verify that the majority want union representation.

Q. Can we be disciplined or demoted for supporting a union or USW?
A. NO. It is illegal for your employer to treat you any different than other employees because you support organizing at your workplace. But there is strength in numbers so everyone has to actively support forming a USW union.

UW International Union…

Building Power

For Quality Jobs

For Fair Wages & Benefits

For Worker Safety

For a Real Voice And Vote on the Job!

For more information contact:

United Steelworkers District 7 Office
Jim Robinson, Director
1301 Texas St., Room 200
Gary, IN 46402
1 (800) 932-8007

Who Will Run Our Local Union?

YOU WLL!

In the USW, the members make the decisions!

YOU Elect your own Local Officers.
YOU Run your own Local Union affairs.
YOU Elect your own Negotiating Committee.
YOU Make the decisions on your own union contract.
YOU Choose your own shop stewards.
YOU Decide important policies and actions of your Local union by majority vote.
YOU Elect your own delegates to the international union conventions.
YOU Elect your International Union Offices.
YOU The membership—is the final voice of authority on decisions in your USW Local Union.
YOU Are the UNION!

America Works Best
When We Say..
UNION YES!

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 11: Globalization

What do they Really Mean?

This week our defining of “Corporate Agenda” terms wraps up.

Corporate Agenda Term #4: Globalization

What they say:

"Globalization is a way of life and the way of the future.
Outsourcing is what we need. We have obligations to our stockholders."

What they mean:

• We want to take advantage of cheap wages, non-existent safety standards, and minimal environmental laws around the globe to make more profit.
  

• Money is more important than any commitments to U.S. workers, even though they built and made our company successful – and they’re the ones we have to rely on to buy the stuff we make offshore.
  

• We need every U.S. business to run like the “Wal-Mart Model” where we can pay low wages, not worry about health care costs, be able to drive out all competition with our presence, and keep costs cheap by searching the globe for the most exploitable people to make our products.
  

• We aren’t worried about finding U.S. workers who will work for next to nothing (they’ll have no other option), but we need to take care of our corporate executives with seven-figure salaries to stay competitive.
  

• It is critical that logos and trademarks be protected and backed up with sanctions and serious penalties for theft of property rights. Worker protections, however, are a barrier to trade.
  

• Sure, some workers – even children – are forced to work in sweatshops, but just think how bad they would have it if we didnt have those jobs there. If it wasn’t for us they would probably starve. They should just appreciate having any job.
  

Source: USW Rapid Response

YOUR CONTRACT

Q. Who will negotiate our contract?
A. After the employees successfully organize, you and your co-workers will nominate and elect a bargaining committee representing all shifts. A USW representative with the assistance of your committee will negotiate a contract with your employer. Once a contract is successfully negotiated the members vote by secret ballot to approve it before the contract goes into effect.

Q. Does the USW support Team Concepts?
A. Yes. The USW actively educates the membership how to get the most from employee involvement programs and assists in negotiating competitive Gain Sharing Programs which protect both employee and employer interests.

Q. Can our employer close or move if we vote for union representation?
A. It is illegal for your employer to close or even threaten to close your workplace because the employees organize with the USW. If your employer makes this kind of threat, let us know as soon as possible.

Q. Our employer told us that “bargaining starts from scratch” if we form a union?
A. Wrong. Once organized, management must bargain from current wages and benefits. It is illegal for your employer to threaten that “bargaining starts from scratch”. Ask management to put their illegal words in writing and to sign it.
The fact is, millions of union workers negotiate and approve fair contracts every day.

Q. Does our employer have to negotiate if we organize our workplace?
A. Yes. Federal law requires the company to “bargain in good faith” with the committee which you elect.

Q. How often do strikes occur?
A. 98% of all labor contracts are settled peacefully at the bargaining table. Only a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot, can ever call a strike.

Q. Who decides what will be in our contract?
A. YOU DO. Once organized, the employees will hold meetings, elect your bargaining committee and determine what bargaining issues will be negotiated. Once your proposals are set, a USW Representative will assist you in negotiating your first contract.

New Green Jobs for Indiana

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Report: Clean Energy Manufacturing Could Bring
39,000 New Green Jobs, Stronger Economy to Indiana
Sierra Club, United Steelworkers, Environment America Call for
National Renewable Electricity Standard to be Included in Energy Legislation

Mishawaka, IN - The Blue-Green Action Alliance, the public policy partnership of the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers, and Environment America released a new report, “Indiana’a Road to Energy Independence,” detailing the thousands of new green jobs that could be created by manufacturing the components for wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy equipment. The study, prepared by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, found that 1,321 firms in Indiana could benefit from 39,221 new jobs—including 25,180 from wind turbine manufacturing and 7,485 in solar manufacturing.

“Why order wind turbines from Denmark to put up in South Bend when we know that Indiana has the workers and the factories to make them right here in the state?” said LuCinda Hohmann, Field Organizer with Environment America. “Turbines from Plymouth and solar panels from St John make sense for both the environment and Indiana’s economy. Indiana’s been blessed with the natural resources to help America fight global warming, now it’s time for us to take advantage of Indiana’s human resources to help put these smart energy solutions—and our citizens—to work.”

At a time when the U.S. is rapidly losing manufacturing jobs, renewable energy manufacturing can revitalize communities across Indiana that have lost jobs, as well creating a whole new generation of good-paying manufacturing jobs. States across the country, such as Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, have already seen thousands of new jobs created in the clean energy manufacturing sector.

“By pushing more renewable energy—something that will fight global warming and protect the environment—Indiana can enjoy the same benefits that other states are already seeing,” said Hohmann.

“We are absolutely committed to making the world a safer place for our children while revitalizing American manufacturing,” said USW District 7 Director Jim Robinson. “The amazing potential for job creation held by clean energy component manufacturing and maintenance should make this an important part of Indiana’s power agenda immediately.”

Strong State and National Renewable Energy Standards Needed

The groups also called on Congress to include a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)—a requirement that 15 percent of our energy come from renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass—in the final energy bill it is due to take up soon. After Republicans, led by Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, filibustered such a standard in the Senate, it was passed by the House of Representatives in its version of the energy bill. It is essential that this provision be included in the final bill.

In addition to creating thousands of new jobs, analyses have demonstrated that enacting a national RES could save hardworking American families up to $18 billion by 2020 on their energy bills by lowering the cost of natural gas, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Representatives Visclosky and Donnelly both voted in favor of clean renewable energy when Congress was working on its energy bills this summer,” said Hohmann. “We thank them for their vote and hope they will continue to work hard to ensure that the final energy bill includes the national Renewable Energy Standard passed by the House. This is something that will benefit each and every one of us by saving us money on our energy bills, protecting our environment, and strengthening our state’s economy.”

Senator Bayh voted for a federal Renewable Energy Standard in 2005 and also signed a letter this year calling for a strong RES in Congress. Environment America thanked Senator Bayh for his efforts and also encouraged him to work hard to ensure that the final energy bill includes the national RES, creating jobs for thousands of Hoosiers statewide.
--------

The Blue Green Action Alliance is a public policy partnership of the United Steelworkers, North America’s largest manufacturing union, and the 1.3 million members and supporters of the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest grassroots’ environmental organization. BGA is headquartered in Minneapolis, MN.

The Renewable Energy Policy Project is a Washington, DC-based think tank that concentrates on analysis of the renewable energy industry. For the past three years REPP has focused attention on the need for state and federal policies that support the growth of the renewable energy industry. George Sterzinger is Executive Director of REPP. He can be reached at gsterzinger@repp.org and 202-293-2898, ext. 203.

ADDITIONAL QUOTES
“The states that moved earliest and most aggressively to establish renewable electricity standards have seen thousands of new jobs created already,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “By enacting a national standard, Congress could make sure that all states can benefit from the green energy manufacturing boom. All the pieces are there, Congress just needs to pass a final bill to flip the switch on America’s clean energy future.”

David Foster, Executive Director of the Blue Green Action Alliance, said, “We believe environmental challenges like global warming represent the most important economic opportunities of our generation. This study confirms that view.”

# # #

Environment America is the new home for US PIRG’s environmental work and is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization

Union Dues

UNION DUES

Q. How much are Union Dues
A. USW dues are 1.3% of your gross wages per month or 2.5 hours maximum. About half of your dues stays in your own Local union treasury to be used upon members approval.

Q. When do I start paying Union dues?
A. It is the policy of the USW that “No Contract, No Dues!”

Q. Will we have to pay an initiation fee?
A. NO. Employees working at the facility at the time it is organized do not pay any initiation fee.

Q. How are Union Dues spent?
A. Union Dues are divided between the International union and the members’ own local union. Dues pay for the many services offered to the members of USW International Union.

These services include:
Contract negotiation Research & education
Pension & Insurance
Health & Safety
Legal Services

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 10: Small Government and Economic Stability

What do they Really Mean?
Our defining of "Corporate Agenda" terms continues.

Corporate Agenda Term #2: Small Government

What they say:

"Get government off our backs! What we need is small government."

What they mean:

• We don't want to deal with government regulation and rules; we should be able to do what we want, when we want.
• We don't want to worry about resources for anyone that becomes disabled or can't work, the poor, their children, the elderly, or anyone without health care - they should have to fend for themselves.
• Rules tie the hands of corporations. We should just trust them to do the right things.
• In the words of Grover Norquist, we need to cut government "to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." (Norquist is a right-wing extremist who advocated for abolishing government departments such as the FDA and the Department of Education.)

Corporate Agenda Term #3: Economic Stability

What they say:

"We need to focus on keeping inflation down."
(Note: Inflation has to do with rising prices of wages and goods)

What they mean:

• It's better if more people (at least 5%) are unemployed so companies don't have to raise wages to attract workers.
• We need to keep flooding our market with cheap goods from foreign producers so there's never a shortage for people to buy - and us to make money on!
• Everything - high unemployment, strong and rapid economic growth, etc. - should take a back seat to policies that prevent inflation.
• We don't want to deal with unions that want higher wages to keep up with rising costs.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 9 What Do They Really Mean?

We already know that Corporate America and their allies in govenment are setting the rules these days. When we watch the news or maybe even sit down at the bargaining table, we hear terms like “labor market flexibility,” “globalization,” “small government,” and “economic stability.” When these issues come up, they’re usually code for something that will benefit corporate interests and leave workers and America’s middle class behind. The next few weeks we’ll take a look at these terms and what they really mean, starting with labor market flexibility today.

What they say:

"We need labor market flexibility to run a profitable business."

What they really mean:

• We want to use temporary employees instead of permanent employees; we want to contract the work out to other companies.
• We don't want to pay overtime.
• We want to schedule employees at the last minute and on irregular shifts. And, we want to mandate overtime.
• We don't want to pay health care or provide defined benefit pension plans.
• In short, we don't want any binding commitments to our employees. We want to use them as we want, when we want, and pay them what we want.
• And, most importantly, we don't want a union or the government interfering with our doing so.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 7: The "Rules" and What They Mean for Us

The Rich Get Richer While the Poor Get Poorer

We left off talking about how those in power make the rules. Where workers and their allies once made laws and enacted standards that grew the middle class, we're now on a course that is dangerously shrinking the middle class. We've heard that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, and it's true.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 6: Think Lead Isn't Serious?

Think Again.

It's deja vu all over again: Former USW President George Becker led the successful fight in the 1970's to force OSHA to act on reducing workplace exposure to lead. Now, 30 years later, courtesy of our global economy, lead is back. It's in Boy Scout merit badges. It's in lipstick. It's even in kids' cups. But, what does it really mean for lead to be back in such a big way? What does it mean for the child that chews on a toy coated in lead paint? What does it mean for the overseas worker who made that toy?

While adults and kids are both impacted, children are particularly susceptible to lead. They are more likely to put their hands or other objects with lead on them in their mouths. Their bodies absorb more of the lead, and their nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects.

High levels of lead in children that go undetected result in:

• Damage to the brain and nervous system,
• Behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity),
• Slowed growth,
• Hearing problems,
• Headaches, and
• Even death.

The impact of lead on adults include:

• Difficulties during pregnancy,
• Other reproductive problems (such as decreased capacity and birth defects),
• High blood pressure,
• Digestive problems,
• Nerve disorders,
• Memory and concentration problems, and
• Muscle and joint pain

Source: Environmental Protection Agency's National Lead Information Center

To find out what you can do right now on this issue, please visit: www.usw.org

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 5: Poison Toys, Anti-freeze Toothpaste, Deadly Pet Food...

What’s Next?

The Taking Back Our Economy Series is highlighting how a corporate, anti-worker agenda is now the norm in our country. Through the Anti-Sweatshop bill action we dealt with one of the results: A global economy that de-values human beings and disregards human rights in favor of fattening corporate bottom lines. Now we’re seeing another related result: Toxic products entering our markets and homes.

Is it any surprise that a global economy that allows a 12-year-old girl to work 16-hour days in a dangerous factory making products for the U.S. marketplace ALSO gives us products laced with lead for our kids?

Just in the last few weeks, 544,000 items have been recalled. All were due to excessive lead in the products, and all were made in China. The following is included in that list:

• 150,000 bookmarks and journals, as well as bracelets that are sold with them from Antioch
Publishing.
• 35,000 Baby Einstein Discover & Play Color Blocks.
• 192,000 key chains and 63,000 Frankenstein head-
shaped tumblers sold by Dollar General.
• 15,000 Totally Me! Room Decor Sets sold at Toys R Us.
• 10,000 Wooden Pull-Along Alphabet & Math Blocks
Wagons, Wooden Pull-Along Learning Blocks Wagons;
10-in-1 Activity Learning Carts; and Flip-Flop Alphabet
Blocks from KB Toys.
• "Pirates of the Caribbean" themed medallion squeeze
flash lights from Eveready Battery.

Where does it end?

Stay tuned for more information on toxic imports in the coming weeks AND
find out

how you can protect your family.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 4: Whose Rules Are We Playing By?

Reviewing Where We’ve Come So Far

When Steelworkers ask why we keep enacting more job-killing free trade agreements, why we aren’t doing more to ensure a decent environment, or why wages aren’t keeping up, the answer all has to do with economics.

Economics is about the decisions on three questions: How do we allocate resources? How do
we produce things? And, who benefits?

Over time, the answers have changed.

In the 1930s, workers won great battles, establishing Social Security, unemployment and
other pro-worker reforms. We were taking control of the economy and making it work for us.
Post World War II, workers and employers shared power, and we saw productivity and worker
wages rise and the start of programs that benefit workers such as OSHA and the
establishment of the minimum wage. At that time people realized that some rules for an
imperfect free market were a good thing to ensure all benefited. Since the 1970s, that power
has flipped in favor of a different way of thinking that wants to loosen the rules for business
and allow the “market” to operate with as few rules as possible. Workers are being left
behind, and anti-worker policies are taking over.

What is specifically happening to workers? The next post will deal with the growing gaps between the wealthy and everyone else.

Until then, here are a few facts to consider:

• Over 1⁄2 of all female workers still earn less than $8.70 an hour ($18,000 a year).

• 25% of all U.S. workers still work in jobs paying $8.70 or less an hour.

• More than 1 in 5 children still live in poverty, the highest among 17 industrialized nations.
  

• We are still the only industrialized country in the world without some system of universal health care.
  

• Our health care system is leaving 47 million Americans a year without care.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 3: We Make it; They Take It

In the last post, we shared information on different periods of time where labor – workers – had more power. In the timeframe of 1947 to 1973, productivity doubled along with average
wages. Then, when the balance of power changed in the early 1970s, productivity continued
to grow, but wages have stagnated.

Today, average wages are only 15 percent higher than average wages in 1980, despite a 67
percent increase in productivity. And, consider the facts that U.S. workers:

• Are the most productive workers in the world,

• Work longer hours than workers in any other developed country, and

• Live in a country whose economy generates over $13 trillion a year in income.

The productivity-wage relationship was the foundation of an understanding between workers
and employers after World War II, when there was a rough balance of power between the
two. Workers were sharing in the benefits of economic growth. Today, that power balance is
gone, and the understanding has fallen apart, leaving workers behind.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Let's Finish Taki'n My Country Back

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 2: Who is Deciding for Us?

Economics are the choices on how we allocate resources, how we produce things, and who benefits in the process.

Those in power make economic decisions, whether that’s tax breaks for the rich, trade legislation that kills jobs, or some other policy.

We have to understand that politics and the economy are not separate things. The economy doesn’t just happen. Government and those that can successfully influence government make the rules for the economy. Those rules once served our interests, but not any more:

1930s Workers were rising up, staging general strikes, and winning battles. We won Social
Security, unemployment benefits and overtime pay. The conversation was about how to make the economy work for workers, not just how we can work for the economy.

1940s - Late 1960s
Organized labor was powerful enough to negotiate the first health care benefits and pension plans. People generally thought that the market was imperfect and could use some government intervention to make it work, including things like a minimum wage, rules on overtime pay, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Early 1970s - Now
The dominant view in Washington is that the “market” should be left alone, with free
trade and minimal regulation on corporations. We are seeing the results, and we know
this isn’t working.

The Results:

How many times more money does a Corporate Executive earn versus the average worker?
Source: Business Week

• In 1960, it was 41 times more

• In 1970, it was 79 times more

• In 1980, it was 42 times more

• In 1990, it was 107 times more

• In 2005, it was 411 times more

Source: USW Rapid Response

Taking Back Our Economy-Part 1: It's All Tied to Economics

• “Every time we’re at the bargaining table, the company tries to take away more and more of our healthcare benefits.”

• “All around my state, factories and plants are shutting down and moving out of the country. I’m worried for my job."

• “There are frightening warnings everywhere about global warming, but I don’t see any action being taken.”

• “Last week I found out that my daughter’s toys are filled with lead paint. I’m angry, and I’m worried for her. If a Chinese company thinks this is acceptable, how does that same company treat their workers?”

• “Prices for everything seem to keep rising and rising, but why isn’t my paycheck keeping up?”

• “I’m doing better than my parents did, but I doubt that my children will be better off than me.”
  

Why? It’s all tied to economics..

Economics is simply about the choices that are made:
How do we allocate resources? How do we produce things?
And, very importantly, who benefits? It matters who makes those decisions. As the
statements above suggest, the current choices are not benefiting workers.

Source: USW Rapid Response

Universal Healthcare, John Edwards

Supporting Mexican Drug War Bad for U.S. Policy

By United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard

November 13th, 2007

Last summer, while Americans worried about whether President Bush was going to attack Iran, he was secretly planning to get them involved in another war, this one closer to home.

It’s Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s drug war. Bush announced last month that he wants to give Calderon $500 million worth of military equipment and training – Bell 412 helicopters and CASA CN 235-300 surveillance aircraft and the like. This would be to help Calderon win the war he started with the country’s drug cartels by dispatching more than 20,000 soldiers to wage battle shortly after his hotly-contested election.

This engagement between the army and the cartels has left more than 2,000 dead this year and has been described by some as Calderon’s civil war. Most victims are members of competing trafficking cartels, but they also include many soldiers and police officers and some innocent bystanders like a 25-year-old school teacher and her three young children gunned down by Mexican military officers June 2 when troops opened fire on a vehicle they claimed failed to stop at a military checkpoint.

Human rights activists fear the massive military presence in civilian society and the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

The Bush administration grant, dubbed “Plan Mexico” after a similar costly militaristic drug interdiction program begun seven years ago called “Plan Colombia,” would provide more gun power for Calderon’s war. Bush attached his appeal for “Plan Mexico” funding, appropriately, to his $46 billion supplemental budget request for Iraq war funding. One war piggybacking – or is that piggybanking – another.

Congress should be wary of this request. Plan Colombia, for all it has cost American taxpayers, has provided questionable results. Engaging this country in yet another war, even if it’s “just” a war on drugs, may not be wise. And instead of waging a “war on drugs” which hasn’t progressed since former President Nixon declared it, Congress might do both its constituents and Mexico a favor by using the $500 million to find ways to eliminate the market for illegal drugs in the United States and help stimulate legitimate business in Mexico.

Since 2000, the U.S. has given Colombia more than $4 billion in military aid, making it the largest recipient outside Afghanistan and the Middle East. Still, cocaine from its plantations flows into the United States. While the number of hectares planted in Colombia is down, it’s not clear that the growers haven’t simply moved to adjacent countries. Similarly, while the violence in Colombia is down, it’s hardly a civilized nation.

Paramilitaries, funded in large part by cocaine trade, continue to control large territories and terrorize the populace. While President Alvaro Uribe boasts that the number of murders of trade unionists is down, the paramilitaries still kill more labor activists in Colombia than in all other countries in the world combined. Still, Uribe does not find a way to prosecute these murders – or thousands of other murders that occur, some by the paramilitaries and others, called extra-judicial murders, committed by his own police and military forces.

The U.S. State Department has concluded that the Colombian military has even supported the paramilitaries with weapons, ammunition, intelligence, logistical aid, and, on occasion, troops. Now, this is the military to which the U.S. is sending hundreds of millions of tax dollars.

This is what $4 billion over seven years has bought the United States. This is not the plan to replicate in Mexico.

To human rights and labor activists in the United States, Plan Mexico is particularly frightening because of the similar history in Colombia and Mexico of egregious disregard for civil and labor rights. Human Rights Watch recently reported that Mexican soldiers have engaged in outrageous abuses while supposedly enforcing drug laws, including raping and beating detainees. And the government has long repressed labor unions, which would explain its failure to find any official responsible for the deaths of 65 miners in the explosion at the Pasta de Conchos mine in February 2006.

Before Congress gets the United States entangled in another “plan” to eradicate drugs with weapons of war, it would be wise to pause and examine the success of the conflicts for which we’re already paying. It should ask experts how to best plug that bottomless American market for Mexican and Colombian drugs. And it should seek advice on how to legally employ those drawn to employment in the lucrative illegal Mexican drug trade because the violence that spills over the border affects us all.