by Gary Farber
As flames of revolution spread across the Mideast, the fight against anti-union bills is spreading across the American Midwest.
David Dayen, aka dday, points out that Ohio, Indiana See Protests Against Anti-Union Bills:
Wisconsin remains the main battleground for the broader assault on worker’s rights. But elsewhere in the Big Ten states and across the country, these battles have moved forward. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich is pushing pretty much the exact same bill as Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Known as SB 5, the bill would strip collective bargaining rights from Ohio public employees. SB 5 is a piece of legislation, so Kasich isn’t trying to implement this under the cover of a budget bill. However, he has said that if he doesn’t get what he wants out of SB 5, he will put those items into the next budget bill. Alternatively, this could go to the ballot. So SB 5 won’t be the last showdown. The Governor, aping Scott Walker, claims this is a fiscal issue, but nobody can explain how much money SB 5 would save.
Many Ohio Republican legislators are already looking askance at SB 5. With pressure rising from state editorial boards and organized labor, the State Senate may not have the votes to get this thing out of committee.
[...]
There’s a large rally planned in Columbus for tomorrow at 1pm local time, and local rallies throughout the state. Enough Republicans are on the fence to derail the bill, if not in committee then in the full Senate.
Indiana has organized protests as well over House Bill 1468, which would basically turn it into a right-to-work state. It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to join the union or pay dues to work at their jobs. The construction industry would be exempt, which given the money involved with the industry and the connection to state jobs, doesn’t surprise. There’s a lot more about the right to work bill here.
The UFCW has been reporting from the protests, timed with a House hearing on the bill today. They have members on every floor of the Indiana Capitol building, occupying it in much the way that the Capitol in Madison has been occupied. Governor Mitch Daniels, who may be eyeing a Presidential run, has said publicly “he’d rather avoid a fight” on this bill rather than press the issue. But the labor movement in Indiana isn’t taking that for granted.
The movement is already spreading beyond Wisconsin.
This fire also is burning in Michigan. The Christian Science Monitor: Wisconsin labor unrest spills across Lake Michigan, and further:
Michigan union leaders and social justice activists will join with colleagues in Wisconsin and Ohio on Tuesday as the AFL-CIO plans street protests in Lansing against Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's attempt to balance the state budget on the backs of public employees.
[...]
IIn scenes that US Rep. Paul Ryan (R) has likened to the massive recent protests and clashes in Cairo, Wisconsin public sector employees and union activists staged a seventh day of protests in Madison Monday as Gov. Scott Walker (R) refused to budge on his plan to gut collective bargaining, the behind-closed-doors process by which civil service workers, including teachers, secure pay, health, and pension benefits.Fighting similar proposals, Ohio union activists protested in Columbus last week, as well, and now Michigan union protesters are planning a morning protest in Lansing. In Tennessee, a Republican-backed plan to end collective bargaining for the state's 52,000 teachers has drawn sharp rebukes from the education establishment. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has also proposed curbing collective bargaining rules in the Hoosier State.
The protests have highlighted a sharp ideological battleground between the progressive, union-backed ideals of President Obama and small-government conservatives who rejiggered the balance of power in an arc of upper Midwestern states in the 2010 mid-term elections.
These protests "probably have to roll out [through the region]," says labor expert Robert Bruno at the University of Illinois, in Champaign. "If you're engaged in progressive politics, you're part of the labor movement, and you're looking at a real threat to your ability to function and to your very existence, it does call out strong resistance."
"I absolutely believe that is politically motivated, and they are using this budget crisis to run a very different agenda, and that is to attack worker rights and silence public employees," Dennis Van Roekel, president of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, told the Columbus Dispatch newspaper.
[...]
Under the Wisconsin plan, workers would retain the right to negotiate their pay under collective bargaining rules, but reduced health and pension benefits would be imposed by the state legislature.
Wisconsin has racked up $315 million in unpaid bills. Michigan has a $1.8 billion budget deficit this year. Ohio faces a nearly $8 billion hole in its two-year budget.
Those fiscal challenges, added to anti-union sentiment among small-government conservatives, mean that public sector employees and their union representatives are "coming up against a deep-seated belief that [government] is all waste, fraud, abuse, and earmarks, and that you can actually make cuts where deficits will melt away and nobody will" really notice, says Norman Ornstein, a fellow at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute.
The Michigan AFL-CIO, which is organizing Tuesday's planned protest, says it opposes over 30 bills in the state legislature, including a proposed law that would give the state power to terminate union contracts in bankrupt cities and towns.
Aaron Krager wisely notes that What Happens in Madison Doesn’t Stay in Madison:
[...] the protests and the power grab by Governor Scott Walker matters greatly for the rest of the country. The struggle is between middle class working families. Most of them provide every day services that we take for granted. They teach Wisconsin’s children, they do the day to day work in state run offices and they plow Wisconsin’s roads. Basic services that Wisconsinites depend upon are done by workers who are lucky enough to enter into a union are being demonized.
Damn straight.
What can happen now? Any number of forks. The "Moderate Wisconsin Republicans" are "Offering] Compromise." This being Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, we see the old Passive Voice Jedi Mind Trick being employed:
With Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker maintaining a hard line on his budget bill and Democratic senators refusing to return to Madison to vote, attention is turning to a group of moderate Republican senators to negotiate a compromise to the stalemate that has drawn thousands of protesters to the state capital for a sixth straight day.
Whose attention? Why, that of some interests we'll return to, and their friends in the press:
The proposal, written by Sen. Dale Schultz and first floated in the Republican caucus early last week, calls for most collective bargaining rights of public-employee unions to be eliminated—per Mr. Walker's bill—but then reinstated in 2013, said Mr. Schultz's chief of staff Todd Allbaugh.
"Dale is committed to find a way to preserve collective bargaining in the future," said Mr. Allbaugh in a telephone interview.
On Sunday, Mr. Walker reiterated his confidence that Republicans would pass their proposal intact.
"We're willing to take this as long as it takes because in the end we're doing the right thing for Wisconsin," Mr. Walker said during an interview with Fox News on Sunday.
Where he surely received hard questions on labor rights. But that it's the "right thing" for Wisconsin, it's true -- just not the best thing.
One hardly need point out that a proposal to wipe out union rights, and then "reinstate" them:
a) makes no sense: either it's a good idea, or it's a bad idea (and it's a horrific idea), and that it would:
b) work exactly like the Bush tax cuts. Once in place, these rights will never be restored, as the same interests will press against them, and the status quo is always easier to maintain in politics. Which is precisely why this maneuver is both being attempted, and is so crucial both to those interested in the rights of workers, ordinary middle-class people, against the increase of income inequality, and who oppose what communist Teddy Roosevelt called the malefactors for great wealth:
Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country.
Who do I speak of? Lee Fang reports:
Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement.Walker has deeply entwined his administration with the Bradley Foundation. The Bradley Foundation’s CEO, former state GOP chairman Michele Grebe, chaired Walker’s campaign and headed his transition. But more importantly, the organizations lining up to support Walker are financed by Bradley cash:
– The MacIver Institute is a conservative nonprofit that has provided rapid-response attacks on those opposed to Walker’s power grab. MacIver staffers produced a series of videos attacking anti-Walker protesters, including one mocking children. Naturally, the videos have become grist for Fox News and conservative bloggers. In addition, MacIver created studies claiming that Wisconsin teachers and nurses are paid too “generously” and other reports claiming that collective bargaining rights hurt taxpayers. The Bradley Foundation has supported MacIver with over $300,000 in grants over the last three years alone.
– The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is a major conservative think tank helping Walker win support from the media. The Institute has funded polls to bolster Walker’s position, and like MacIver, produced a flurry of attack videos against Walker’s political adversaries and a series of pieces supporting his drive against the state’s labor movement. Over the weekend, the Institute secured a pro-Walker item in the New York Times. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is supported with over $10 million in grants from the Bradley Foundation.
– As ThinkProgress has reported, the powerful astroturf group Americans for Prosperity not only helped to elect Walker, but bused in Tea Party supporters to hold a pro-Walker demonstration on Saturday. In 2005, the Bradley Foundation earmarked funds to help Koch Industries establish the Americans for Prosperity office in Wisconsin. From 2005-2009, the Bradley Foundation has given about $300,000 to Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin (also called Fight Back Wisconsin).
It should be no surprise that Walker’s radicalism is boosted by Bradley money. Today, the Bradley Foundation is controlled by a group of establishment Republicans, along with Washington Post columnist George Will. However, the Foundation’s agenda still reflects the extremist views of its founder, Harry Bradley. Although he passed away in 1965, Harry, a member of one Wisconsin’s most powerful families and a key financier of nationalist hate groups, would have eagerly applauded Walker’s union-busting agenda.
[...]
According to scholar William Schambra, Harry even studied Lenin and Stalin for ideas on how to wage guerrilla warfare against the left. He joined candy manufacturer Robert Welch to be one of the charter members of the John Birch Society (along with JBS board member Fred Koch, the father of Koch Industries executives Charles and David Koch), and financed other right-wing firebrands. Media Transparency’s profile of the Bradley Foundation sheds light on its founder:Robert Welch, who founded the Society in 1958, was a regular speaker at Allen-Bradley sales meetings. Harry distributed Birchite literature, as did Fred Loock, another key figure at the company. They also supported the Australian doctor Fred Schwarz, founder of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade; William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review; and a right-wing Midwest radio program produced by anti-communist producer Bob Siegrist. Harry’s main political targets were “World Communism” and the U.S. federal government, not necessarily in that order. His political philosophy was laissez-faire capitalism, and he was strongly opposed to anything that might restrict his freedom to conduct his business as he saw fit. His promotion of “freedom”, however, did not extend to his own workers. While women had worked at the plant since 1918, and made up nearly a third of the workforce during World War II, they weren’t paid the same as men. They finally sued in 1966, charging the company paid less to women than male workers operating the same machines. A federal judge ruled in their favor. Allen-Bradley was one of the last major Milwaukee employers to racially integrate, and then only through public and legal pressure. By 1968, when the company’s workforce had grown to more than 7,000, Allen-Bradley employed only 32 Blacks and 14 Latinos.
After the Allen-Bradley company was purchased by Rockwell International in 1985, the Bradley Foundation surged with an additional $290 million in funds. The money has gone on to finance ideas held strongly by Harry Bradley: anti-affirmative action scholars, anti-multiculturalism books (the Bradley Foundation underwrote the notoriously racist book The Bell Curve), anti-welfare campaigns, privatization efforts, neoconservative fronts, and tens of millions for groups opposed to public and private sector unions, particular in the field of education. As conservative writer Al Regnery has observed, conservatives have relied on the Bradley Foundation to finance the backbone of radical policy ideas that first take root in Wisconsin but are then championed by Republicans around the country. Gov. Scott Walker’s current fight to crush labor rights in Wisconsin is the fulfillment of Harry Bradley’s John Birch Society dream.
That, my friends, is who we're up against.
And why we must win this fight.
1 of the 14 Democratic state senators that fled Wisconsin rather than vote on a bill taking away collective bargaining rights says he fears Republicans may find a way to vote on a key part of the measure without them.Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach told The Associated Press on Monday that Republicans could attempt to attach the part of the proposal taking away collective bargaining rights to an unrelated bill and pass it Tuesday.
Worse could happen, as Matthew Boyle reports:
Wisconsin’s Senate can move forward on many pieces of legislation — and could eliminate some or all collective bargaining rights for public sector workers — even without the 14 Democratic state senators who fled to Chicago.
Wisconsin’s Senate needs a quorum, or 20 senators, to proceed on any spending or fiscal business. There are only 19 Republican state senators, and because all the Democrats fled, the Senate can’t hold a vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s budget. But a quorum isn’t needed for most non-spending legislation.
Newly elected state Sen. Leah Vukmir, a Tea Party favorite, told The Daily Caller the Senate could separate the removal of collective bargaining rights for state and local employees from the spending bill if the Democrats refuse to return. Vukmir said she’s not yet sure if Wisconsin’s Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald will do so, but said it’s a possibility.
“All the collective bargaining stuff could be done as a separate bill,” Vukmir said in a phone interview. “I’m not certain if we’re going to do that at this point.”
Vukmir said the Senate could go a step further and make union membership voluntary for public sector workers, or change the rules so union workers would have to vote in favor of representation annually.
Back to the WSJ:
Even if moderate Republicans did move to support Mr. Schultz's proposal, it is not clear that Democrats would accept it. On Sunday, Democratic senators emphasized that the elimination of bargaining rights should be taken off the table all together since the state's public sector unions have accepted the governor's concessions on increase pension and health-care contributions to repair the current budget addressed by Mr. Walker's bill.
Several senators also said a compromise on the bill that would sunset the collective-bargaining provisions in 2013 would not be acceptable to Democrats. One reason is that Republicans will likely still be in control of both the state senate and assembly and simply extend the provisions. But a bigger reason, according to several senators, is that unions have already agreed to fix the fiscal issues.
"The collective-bargaining language has to be removed altogether.Collective bargaining isn't a fiscal issue," said Sen. Jon Erpenbach. "If it's OK to collectively bargain in 2013, why isn't it OK today?"
As I said: why? Because it's a con game, a bunko, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle, attempt to bamboozle the vast majority of the public who pay little attention to politics: the marks.
What do we do?
David Dayen again helps out:
A coalition of activists in Wisconsin has announced the formation of “Wisconsin Wave,” led by a former Green Party candidate and the executive director of a think tank called the Liberty Tree Foundation. Ben Manski said that the long-term campaign would bringing together “all the diverse constituencies that represent the majority of working people in this country” to focus on the needs and concerns of the middle class. “This shifting of the burden from the wealthy to the middle class and the rest of us,” Manski said in a press conference, “is part of a broader agenda that has been pushed by corporate lobbyists… for my entire life.” They plan to start by picketing Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, a state group that lobbies for corporate interests. A separate group called for boycotts of businesses that continue to support Scott Walker.
Democratic state Rep. Mark Pocan hosted the press conference in his office. Speakers at the Wisconsin Wave press event included the head of a firefighter’s local in Dane County. Firefighters have been exempt from the collective bargaining restrictions in the budget repair bill pushed by Republicans. Lisa Graves of the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy said that this inclusive movement of students, people of color, labor, community and environmental justice groups would eventually flow across the country. “It’s about dividing the working class of this country,” Graves said, and posited Wisconsin WAVE as the alternative.
You can hear the press conference here. The most interesting part of movements like this happens when new organizations and coalitions spring out of it. This is essentially the model for an independent, anti-austerity movement along the lines of US Uncut (their first wave of actions will happen this Saturday, by the way) that is not located inside a political party. It’s that moment where you see a new way forward.
Let's move forward.
Let's have a living wage, as Leninist, I mean, Progressive, Teddy Roosevelt called for:
We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.
[...]
Our aim is to control business, not to strangle it--and, above all, not to continue a policy of make-believe strangle toward big concerns that do evil, and constant menace toward both big and little concerns that do well. Our aim is to promote prosperity, and then see to its proper division.
[...]
The only effective way in which to regulate the trusts is through the exercise of the collective power of our people as a whole through the Governmental agencies established by the Constitution for this very purpose. Grave injustice is done by the Congress when it fails to give the National Government complete power in this matter; and still graver injustice by the federal courts when they endeavor in any way to pare down the right of the people collectively to act in this matter as they deem wise; such conduct does itself tend to cause the creation of a twilight zone in which neither the Nation nor the States have power.
Let's return to these radical idea of so many Republicans of 1912. That's how long we've been waiting, and fighting. We must sing of bread and roses:
As we go marching, marching, in the beauty of the day,
A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray,
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing: Bread and Roses! Bread and Roses!
As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women's children, and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.
As we go marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient call for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too.
As we go marching, marching, we bring the greater days,
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
No more the drudge and idler, ten that toil where one reposes,
But a sharing of life's glories: Bread and roses, bread and roses.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies; bread and roses, bread and roses.
March, march, in the beauty of the day. Dance the Wisconsin Waltz.
UPDATE, 10:05 PM, Pacific Time: "Recall Walker" crowd chanting.
If a video doesn't work for you, try reloading your browser; if that doesn't work, click through to the original on YouTube. General principle.
And: Gov. Walker Rejects Compromise as Wisconsin Union Protests Continue
[...]
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, it was reported -- and I want -- we want to clarify this -- the Democrats offered to -- or the unions, we should say, offered to go along with cuts in pay, cuts in benefit, as long as they could keep their collective bargaining rights. The governor said no to that. Is that accurate?
JASON STEIN: That's right.
Over a couple of days, they -- they repeated that offer. Democratic senators have also said they're prepared to come back if that sort of a deal is struck. The governor has repeatedly rejected that offer, saying it's not enough.
So much for that.
UPDATE, February 22nd, 5:54 a.m., PST: Polling:
[...] Reaction to the specifics of Walker's Proposals include overwhelming opposition from Democrats, majority support from Republicans and sizable opposition from independents. Walker has a 10% net disapproval -- 39% approve, 49% disapprove. [...] Voters in Wisconsin strongly agree with the working families at the state capitol and oppose Governor Scott Walker's anti-worker agenda. Moreover, since the protests began, Governor Walker has seen real erosion in his standing, with a majority expressing disapproval of his job performance and disagreement with his agenda. Strong majorities disagree with eliminating collective bargaining for public employees and believe that if workers agree to concessions on pensions and healthcare benefits that the Governor should drop his plan to eliminate collective bargaining. [...] Overall, a majority (51 percent) of Wisconsin voters disapprove of Walker's job performance and give him net negative favorability ratings (39 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable). In contrast, 62 percent of voters offer a favorable view of public employees (only 11 percent unfavorable) and 53 percent of voters rate labor unions favorably (31 percent unfavorable). When asked if they agree or disagree with the position different groups and individuals are taking in the current situation, voters side with the public employees (67 percent agree), the protesters (62 percent agree), the unions (59 percent agree), and the Democrats in the state legislature (56 percent agree). In contrast, 53 percent disagree with Walker and 46 percent disagree with the Republicans in the legislature. [...] Just over half of Wisconsin's voters oppose the agenda offered by Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature. Only 43 percent favor it. It is striking that there is a real intensity gap with 39 percent strongly opposing their proposals and only 28 percent strongly favoring it. When voters are presented with Walker's specific agenda, including cutting benefits, freezing wages and eliminating collective bargaining, 52 percent oppose. The intensity gap actually increases to 41 percent strongly oppose and 24 percent strongly favor. [...] Finally, voters are convinced that if public employees accept concessions and pay more for retirement and healthcare that Governor Walker should drop his attempt to eliminate collective bargaining. Three quarters say that public employees should not have their collective bargaining rights eliminated including nearly half of Republicans. [....]
Implications obvious. Last night: Wisconsin Legislature Shuts Down Comment Line After Too Many Complaints.
[...] After a flood of calls that legislative staff tell TPM came from "unions and other non-profits," the legislature's Sergeant at Arms ordered the number disconnected Friday, a move that according to sources could save the state quite a bit of money as the protests against Gov. Scott Walker's (R) union-busting budget plan rage. [...]
Each call to the toll-free line costs the state 10 cents, the staffer told me. And once Walker's budget proposal became news, the calls starting pouring in nonstop. Once the phone was hung up, it would ring again. Hundreds and hundreds of calls, every hour -- even at 3 AM, when the Hotline transfers to voicemail.
But cutting off the line during the height of the protest, the argument goes, the state will save a ton. [...]
It's the first time in the more than 20 years the line's been open that the Sergeant at Arms had it disconnected, according to staff in Madison.
A spokesperson for the AFL-CIO told TPM that he didn't know of any scheme to direct calls to the Legislative Hotline, and he suggested such a plan didn't really make sense as legislators in Wisconsin would probably only care about calls that came from people in Wisconsin, not national complaints from people forwarded to them by an outside group.
At last, some help with the budget crisis.
UPDATE, Feburary 22nd, 7:46 a.m., PST:
Madison Area AFL CIO Votes to Prepare For General Strike
[...]
Around 10:50PM Wisconsin Time on February 21st the South Central Federation of Labor endorsed the following motions:
Motion 1: The SCFL endorses a general strike, possibly for the day Walker signs his “budget repair bill,” and requests the Education Committee immediately begin educating affiliates and members on the organization and function of a general strike.
Motion 2: The SCFL goes on record as opposing all provisions contained in Walker’s “budget repair bill,” including but not limited to, curtailed bargaining rights and reduced wages, benefits, pensions, funding for public education, changes to medical assistance programs, and politicization of state government agencies.
It’s important to note that this is just a threat and not actually going out on a general strike. Under the Taft-Hartley Act a general strike in support of other workers is illegal; therefore the key word is the phrase “begin educating affiliates and members on the organization and function of a general strike”. In addition, only individual unions, not the central labor federation has the ability to call a strike.
Many private sector unions would not go out on a general strike out of fear of being of sued by their employers. However, local labor observers say many public sector unions and some of the construction unions would go out on a strike. Threatening a general strike creates even more pressure for Scott Walker in the business community.
I don't think we're back to the Seattle General Strike of 1919, but I approve.
Preach on.
Posted by: Pooh | February 21, 2011 at 09:05 PM
Outstanding work there Gary, astonishing
I apologize for reposting a part of my post but believe it is important.
Recently i had an experience that scared the sh.t out of me. I live in Phoenix where there are few artificial lakes used as water reservoirs for Phoenix. I was at a gas station filling the watter bottles which was right next to Red Box kiosk. While i was doing my thing a guy was renting the movies out when he said: "i would not use that water" and while handing me his business card with his Arizona Department Water Resources written on top with his name and info "they do not let us inspect those anymore". I responded with: "then i will by only new bottles"
Him:"do you know they dumped 40tons of waste into Canyon Lake, and we are not allowed to do nothing about it"
Me: "Then we are in Fascist state already"
Him:"Yes, it's fascism already"
Posted by: crithical tinkerer | February 21, 2011 at 09:25 PM
EPU'ed from the previous thread :
"Madison Guy", who writes the thoughtful and often beautiful Letter From Here blog, recommends this Help Defend Wisconsin site to those who wish to help defray the immediate costs of maintaining the demonstration.
Posted by: joel hanes | February 21, 2011 at 09:27 PM
There is no one in government contracting that have an incentive to care about costs 45 years from now. Most taxpayers don't have an incentive to care about those costs.
Just as we saw with GM and Chrysler, the people charged with caring about the longterm costs associated with employment won't exist to pay for them.
Even long term private sector companies are unable to make decisions about value that exist beyond the lifetime of those living.
The lawyers among us may recall that you generally cannot require anything regarding real property that will exist beyond the lifetime of any one now living (give or take). Maybe that rule is one that should be resurrected: leaving debts for your children to pay seems like a bad plan.
Which is not to say that contracts that required government investment over time to compensate employees should be ignored. Rather, they should be funded, those who failed to fund then should be jailed, and those who agree to them now should identify revunue streams to pay for them, or lose thier own benefits.
Posted by: jrudkis | February 21, 2011 at 09:39 PM
I see a small problem with the assertion that once public employee's union bargaining rights are taken away, they will never be returned. Which is that an identical assertion could have been made, with equal validity (and more persuasively, given the role of public employee unions in financing politicians campaigns), that once public employees were granted union bargaining rights, they could never be taken away.
Which doesn't take away from your point that taking them away while committing to give them back is stupid. Regardless of whether one approves of public employees having those rights or not.
Posted by: wj | February 21, 2011 at 11:18 PM
But wj, what reason would those who have erased collective bargaining rights for public workers ever return them - or even give the time of day to those who lobby for their return?
I don't get how you think this isn't an issue.
Posted by: sekaijin | February 21, 2011 at 11:38 PM
We had a little rally here in support of Wisconsin's sane and respsonsible citizens. By "here " I mean Olympia, the nearest metro area where I very nearly had an accident due to my unfamiliarity with urban driving.
The rally was fun--Teamsters, AFL-CIO, my union, and, to my surprise, a big contigent from the PTA! I think they were there to support funding for education but we all ended up more or less at the same rally.
I gave fifty bucks to the Wisconsin Democrats through Act Blue.
To buy pizza for protesters call 608 252 9248.
My only problem with the outbreak of protests is that they are a long time in coming. It reminds me of that poem from WWII--paraphrasing like mad it goes something like this: "First they came for the Jews and I did not protest, then they came for the unions, and I did not protest..and then they came for me. Etc."
Its the same principle. The Republican party leadership decided thirty years or so years ago to destroy the middle and working classes in this country. That is their intent and they are a long ways toward realizing their goal. But they didn't start out by attacking the middle class. They went after "nigg---" oops, excuse me, Republicans don't say that--"BUMS on welfare" first. Then the demonizing of gays, liberals, Muslims, immigrants, unions...all the while creating deficits and shifting the tax responsiblity on to those who can afford it the least, while using deficits--THEIR deficts--to justify their real goal, the dismantling of every instution or program that doesn't serve their corporate sponsors or red state special interests.
Now they are finally coming out in the open about "reforming" Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid and they are attacking unions, one of the last supports for the middle class.
So while I am very grateful that people are finally getting mad I wish it had happened sooner. There should have been mass expressions of outrage against Faux stations the first time Glen Beck's bullshit casued a murder. There should have been huge crowds protesting demonization of welfare recepients, most of whom are very young or very old. There should be mobs of young people protesting the global warming deniers who are fucking up the future for everyone. It sort of peeves me in a way that this rebellion is sparked by Republican efforts to kick another support out from under the middle class.
But I guess rebellions have to start somewhere.
Posted by: wonkie | February 22, 2011 at 12:10 AM
wonkie: To buy pizza for protesters call 608 252 9248.
If it's Ian's Pizza, I think the number is (608) 257 9248. Also, if you want mad love from the Madisonians, you can't go wrong by ordering the protestors a mac'n'cheese pizza -- fresh out of the oven, it's one of the best dang things ever.
Posted by: Anarch | February 22, 2011 at 12:37 AM
Go get it, Wonkie.
Meanwhile, quorum jumpers in Wisconsin have illustrious precedent:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/20/lincoln-fled-state-wisconsin/
John Kasich's parents were U. S. Postal workers in Pennsylvania. His bones were made by sucking off the gummint titty.
And he never gets enough of the suck.
Thief, parasite, vermin, deadbeat.
I repeat myself, but a virulent, armed nationwide tax revolt is needed from the left side of the political spectrum.
Opening non-negotiable position: no taxes paid, not one cent, of any kind to governments run by Republican thieves.
I say kill the government before they can.
Great post, Gary.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 22, 2011 at 12:38 AM
Hey, the Wisconsin Mubaraks shut down some public communications
tp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-legislature-shuts-down-comment-line-after-too-many-complaints.php?ref=fpb
Posted by: Countme--In | February 22, 2011 at 01:00 AM
February has been so much fun thus far.
Wait until you get a load of March.
http://crookedtimber.org/2011/02/21/shutdown/#more-19049
Posted by: Countme--In | February 22, 2011 at 01:10 AM
My dear friend, wonkie, we truly are kindred spirits: Not to slight the many wonderful and strong words you have written on a subject near and dear to both our hearts, our beloved shelter dogs, those are the most powerful and spot-on words you have authored on these pages.
It is hardly a coincidence that as organized labor has been dying a slow death so, too, is this country's once great and iconic middle class.
Having grown up in a union household -- my late father was a lifelong ironworker -- I have listened over the past decade or so with disdain, digust and sadness hearing co-workers, even friends, bad-mouth organized labor and declare pathetic and misinformed complaints such as "unions are what's wrong with this country."
Never mind that organized labor was a driving force toward creating the very middle class in which they belong.
Or that organized labor gave them hard-earned lifestyle enhancements that we take for granted -- the 8-hour work day, the 40-hour work week, weekends.
Not to mention safe working conditions, clean working conditions.
Yet, like so many other Americans in this nation's dying middle class, they have somehow bought into the views of the GOP, corporate CEOs, and those life-destroying Masters of the Universe.
I wonder how many of them have seen the excellent 1987 John Sayles' masterpiece, Matewan, as inspirational as it is heartbreaking in its dramatization of the United Mine Workers bloody and brutalizing fight to uplift the lives of downtrodden and seemingly hopeless West Virginia coal miners. (A film that should be shown and discussed in all high school civics courses.)
And so it has come to this: With Wisconsin as a test case, if you will, Republican governors across the land feel emboldened
-- and perhaps sensing a power vacuum left open by the ineffectual leadership of the Great Obama, he who stuck up for the middle class by extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich -- to bust organized labor once and for all and, in the process, crush one of the greatest allies of the Democratic Party.
And wasn't it just a couple of years ago when we were reading and writing obituaries of the Republican Party that George Bush seemingly left for dead?
If only.
If anything is dying -- some would say it is already dead -- it is the middle class and those workers in it like myself.
---
Seeing how it has been many moons since I visited The Kitty and friendly confines, belated props to russell, lj, Jacob, Doctor Science and Gary.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 22, 2011 at 01:19 AM
No matter what you project, or extrapolate, we have a Democratic President, Senate, we have courts, they're all flawed, we have major disagreements in this country, but there are no armed militias fighting each other, no... look, you can take anything, and view it in the most alarmist fashion, and predict it will continue in the worst way.
That doesn't mean we're currently in this imaginary future. I could equally make up a scenario and description that a tea partier can, will, and does use to explain that we're living in a communist state.
These are equally ridiculous claims.
I'm sorry, but, no, we're not living in a fascist state.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 01:20 AM
"We don't live just by ideas. Ideas are part of the mixture of customs and practices, intuitions and instincts that make human life a conscious activity susceptible to improvement or debasement. A radical idea may be healthy as a provocation; a temperate idea may be stultifying. It depends on the circumstances. One of the most tiresome arguments against ideas is that their 'tendency' is to some dire condition -- to totalitarianism, or to moral relativism, or to a war of all against all."
-- Louis Menand
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 01:21 AM
Hey, bedtime! Good to see you again!
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | February 22, 2011 at 01:40 AM
Fascist state as in Arizona state, and i did not make it up. I lived in Illinois before moving here and i have to tell you it is astounding difference in many faces, but most is in business codes and rules.
This is the state where governor signed SB1070 a racist law that benefits Corrections Corporation of America only, where state capitol building was sold 2 years ago, where even teachers are so brainwashed that most of them are against unions and majority of schools are charter (private) schools now. This is the state where corporations rule the government in pure definition of the Fascism. Not to mention what Clarence Dupnik stated not that long ago cause of which those bigots recognized themselves without being named.
Posted by: crithical tinkerer | February 22, 2011 at 01:57 AM
I just realized that you consider fascism as having militias fighting each other. That is not necessary for fascism but for Nazism.
From Wikipedia:
Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong..... Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[17] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[18]
Posted by: crithical tinkerer | February 22, 2011 at 02:05 AM
If I wanted to offer you a full definition of fascism, I would. I've done it before, but there are limits on my time.
You just realized wrong. Please stop trying to mindread. I write carefully, as a rule. If I write something, respond to it. Don't imagine something else and respond to it.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 02:18 AM
The text:
There are some links I'm not embedding here which can be found here. We could go into this further at some length, but it hardly matters.There are reams of books and sources debating "fascism," but let's go simple -- again, I'm not going to embed links here; read the above for more, as a starting point:
So: However: I think there's a fair argument that Benito Mussolini knew what fascism was. Others may disagree -- learnedly, and with facts, and citations, or original insights well put.Let's try: Others: Or: Ernst Nolte: Or Stanley G. Payne: Or Roger Griffin: Would anyone like to further discuss what "fascism" is? I can do this for as many hours as anyone would like.
Easier and less irritating that have someone decide to read my mind and "realize" what I "think" fascism is.
But maybe I don't understand what fascism is; how many more days would you like to discuss it, Crithical Thinker?
--Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 02:42 AM
Assertion is not argument.
Kindly give your cite to an accepted definition of fascism that you're using, please, or cease using a term you won't define.
Please pick one.
Clarence Dupnik: He said: What on earth makes you think I'm not aware of these things? Why don't you try asking me if I know about something before I'm assuming I'm an ignorant dolt you have to fill in on stuff I know perfectly well? It's very rude.Try asking, not lecturing, and talking down, please? Thanks.
You're referring toPosted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 03:00 AM
Would anyone like to further discuss what "fascism" is?
No. Let's further discuss what "pedantry" is.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | February 22, 2011 at 03:46 AM
Gary, I agree with you that we're not living in a fascist state, not yet. But do you really think, "We have a Democratic President, Senate" even vaguely resembles a refutation of that claim???
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | February 22, 2011 at 06:49 AM
Well, Gary did the work on fascism so I don't have to. I have read Griffin and like the revolutionary modernist model.
But for our purposes or mine as a socialist, a quick very important theme is that in fascism the state controls corporations. (and everything else.) We are moving rapidly to conditions in which corporations control the state. (matters of degree, nothing new, what is the state, what is a corp, all qualifiers, etc). Your polluter who can't be regulated shows the form.
Fascism is a nationalism. The authoritarianism needs a hierarchy and certain trascendental quasi-religious values, racism, the Leader that are in conflict with capitalism. I don't think the kind and degree of nationalism of the early 20th is available anymore.
The Koch Brothers, seeking energy profits and lower labor costs (among other things) are a major factor in what is happening in Wisconsin. Not to single them out, because this is what capitalism or corporatism always does, and the Kochs are replaceable and interchangeable with innumerable others. In Egypt its Cargill, in Libya Monsanto and others. The names don't matter.
Are we back in the Gilded Age? I don't think so. Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are not Rockefeller, Morgan, or Vanderbilt. See Veblen, they are technocrats and managers driven by the system more than driving it.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 22, 2011 at 07:17 AM
Hell, I don't even think late Neo-liberal capitalism is or needs an ideology. The people who are "running things" apparently can't imagine anything different anymore. It's a freight train driving itself.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 22, 2011 at 07:22 AM
IMF Report on Libya's recent Neo-Liberal Reforms
Feb 15, 2011:"The outlook for Libya’s economy remains favorable"
I don't understand all of what's going on. Maybe Global Capital needs a interconnected workforce. Marx says capital needs labor to have two freedoms:freedom from subsistence and freedom to sell her labor. Could be the ole nepotistic dictators are just bad for the New Business Model.
But it is an incredible freight train a 'rollin over us now.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 22, 2011 at 07:44 AM
This likely refers to the thousands of Catholic priests and other ministers imprisoned at Dachau and other camps.
As a historical aside, it's more likely that Niemoller's reference to "the Church" here refers to the German Confessing Church, a Protestant movement that opposed the Nazification of the German churches, and Naziism generally. Niemoller and many others were imprisoned or killed for their opposition to the Nazis.
Not to slight the Nazi's persecution of Catholics.
it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be levelled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage.
Pay attention to that one.
in fascism the state controls corporations. (and everything else.) We are moving rapidly to conditions in which corporations control the state.
That is my take as well.
Posted by: russell | February 22, 2011 at 08:45 AM
One difference I see between the ideologues of the era of fascism* and those that aim for a similar system today is that in the past the preachers tended to believe in it themselves while I doubt that the same holds true for the main voices today.
To take one example: Hugenberg vs. Rupert Murdoch. The former used his riches and media empire with the goal of restoring the absolute monarchy (minus all liberal reforms), the latter supports authoritarian politics/politicians in order to boost his bottom line. Hugenberg was an ardent nationalist, Murdoch is a pure "vaterlandsloser Gesell" who for example foments anti-German hatred in his English and anti-English hatred in his German media.
The Koch family is in the same tradition, profitting from Stalin while starting Bircherism at home. Looking at the GOP leadership I see few 'true believers', the lies are simply too blatant to be the result of delusion.
*that includes proponents of alternative authoritarian systems that lost to those that would write their pages of the history book in blood.
Posted by: Hartmut | February 22, 2011 at 09:27 AM
February has been so much fun thus far.
Wait until you get a load of March.
http://crookedtimber.org/2011/02/21/shutdown/#more-19049
You know if they're going to shut down the gov't then I want a real shut down. None of this "essential personnel" are exempt BS. If there's no money there's no money. So, no social security checks, no salaries for executive branch employees, no congressional salaries, no money for additional supplies for the troops in Afghanistan/Iraq/Yemen/Pakistan/etc., no money for DEA enforcement, air traffic control, border "protection," etc. etc. etc. None none none.
Posted by: Ugh | February 22, 2011 at 09:39 AM
Hello Bedtime! I hope you are here to stay!
I did not mean to bring facism into the conversation. My point was the incremental attack on pretty near everyone by the Republican party seems to have provoked public protests of large size only when the attack became clearly aimed at the middle class. I can rememver Jesse Jackson warning us that this was coming (white middle class people) about this nearly thirty years ago!
There is more in the Wisconsin union busting legislation than union busting BTW. It's a perfect example of Republican legislation in that the need for the legislation is a lie, it is intended to reduce the incomes of a sector of the not-rich public, it is being promoted through demonization, and --here's the part that is not getting much buplicity--it has a crony-capitalism componenet that would allow a political appointee ( in this case a freind of the govedrfneor's) to sell off public assets through a no-bid process, and it includes a sneaky behind the scenes way to destroy Medicaid while claiming to manage Medicaid better ( in this case a change in how Medicaid eligibility is determined that gives the power to change the basic rules of eligibility to political appointeees rather than the legislature).
Deliberate creation of a crisis, boogeymen, attack on the incomes of ordinary Americans, cronyism and corruption, the gutting of programs under the lie of reforming them. Your Repubican party at work! Pro-life! Family values! Fiscally conservative!
Posted by: wonkie | February 22, 2011 at 09:48 AM
And switch off water and electricity to the Capitol Building. Congresscritters shall be required to borrow torches from the pitchfork crowd outside to light the chamber.
Posted by: Hartmut | February 22, 2011 at 09:51 AM
I think Harmut is generally right about the leaders of the Repubilcan party. The Senators, a few of the most promenent Representatives and the behind the scenes types like Rove, Norquist etc aren't ever sincere in anything they say. Barefaced liars. Their goal is simply power and money for themselves and their sponsors. On the other hand the House is full of idiots who actually believe the stuff McConnell/Boehner etc. say.
One of the weird things about people wh vote for Repubicans is the apparent lack of anny sense of history. Its like a consituency of folks with short term memory loss. Every election cycle the Repubicans gin up a fake issuue to get themselves elected and every cycle once elected they drop the issuue and gofor what really matters: cutting taxes for the rich, creating deficits, attacking the economic viablity of everyone else incluuding their won base.
Remember when the Republicans were all about term limits? One of the very few to take that seriouly once elcted was Frist.
Remember when Palin and McCain decided that earmarks wereth issue? It didn't matter that Palin had delivered, during her brief term in office, more earmark money perhaed to Alaska than any other governor. And concern over earmarks has faded out of Cngres now that the issuue is now longer useful for getting the Teatard vote. Last election Reppubicas who voted agasint the stimulus ran for office claiming credit for the job creating effectgs of the stimuluus on their own districts and trumpeting the need for jobs.
Now all that is gone and the whole Republican party is united in screaming abouut the dire effects of the national budget deficit--their deficit!--and jobs are forgotten.
I am not willing to amintaint he fiction any longer that the Republican party is just composed of people with a diffedrent philosophy and a different take on things and that we can talk stuff over and compromise and share insights and wisdom etc.
The Republican party has no philosophy beyond the ends justify the means and thhe goal is to restore make us a facade democracy with the economic and social norms of Dickens; England.
Posted by: wonkie | February 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM
bedtime, great to hear from you, often wondering how things are going. Thanks so much for dropping by.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM
It's not merely collective bargaining rights:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/22/947918/-Wisconsin:-Its-not-just-collective-bargaining,-Medicaid-is-on-the-line-too
This will be wholesale murder.
Joan Baez singing kumbaya will not do the job.
The Republican Party is a murderer.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 22, 2011 at 11:10 AM
TP:
Sure.-- A dictionary of modern English usage
By Henry Watson Fowler
Brett:
No. But if I answer long, someone complains I'm too long. If I answer short, someone complains I'm not refuting sufficiently.This goes with writing, and blogging, and that's fine, but that's your answer: no, I don't believe it refutes the claim.
I agree completely with bob mcmanus at bob mcmanus at February 22, 2011 at 07:17 AM.
Bob: write me a guest post, please. Write me at gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com
Discuss with me.
Russell quotes:
I agree, and this is where I part company with many libertarians when many blithely see no difference between "private" corporate power, and the evils of governmental power, which they're all over.I completely agree that if government becomes too intrusive and powerful, by definition it leads in the direction -- if taken far enough -- to some form of fascism or communism, both of which, loosely speaking, generally have historically led to some degree, high or low, of totalitariansim.
Which is, y'know, bad.
But that regulation capture leads to corporate semi-control of government, and has is something too many libertarians (not all, some are quite sensible and moderate) seem to be blind to, and thus blind that their own views lead to supporting the same Big Government they ostensibly oppose.
And we're all too close to this stage. And that's where I'll agree that there are tendencies to a small degree towards "fascism." Or, if you prefer, "communism."
Both of which terms indeed have many usages, but what we have is "corporatism," and in a very bad way.
We need to eliminate corporate personhood.
But that's circular, and I don't see how, absent increases in the current kind of protests building to a crescendo of near-revolutionary fervor.
Right now, corporate money rules Congress. Therefore Congress won't act, and the only way to change Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819, and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, would be a SCOTUS decision that I'm not going to hold my breath on, so therefore it's Congress, Congress won't act, and it's entirely possible a Constitutional Amendment might be required, and good luck waiting for that.
So the only solution is sufficient mass outrage and change in Congress, and that takes something like near-revolutionary fervor, and I don't want violence, so the only solution I see is endlessly further education, and I don't see sufficiently good outcomes arriving for years, if ever, so we've all got to keep working damn hard.
And that's why I blog. And try to do what I can politically.
To make this a better world for all of us, most of all the plain people of America, who aren't rich.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM
I ain't no Hilzoy, and never will be, but this isn't your grandparent's ObWi, and the more longtimers back, and newcomers, the better, and you're a delight to see.
Second the motion, bedtimeforbonzo.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Wonkie:
No, that's because Congress changed the law, and Obama gave it away, because it's trivial, although I happen to think that earmarks are confused with "pork," and that earmarks, when not abused, were a good thing.We're a democracy. Congress, and your Representative represent your local district. Having people able to lobby their local representative, if it's real people talking, not, again, corporate money, to get local projects built, if they're good projects, is a good thing.
Localism is good. Conservatives should support local representation and power over centralized executive power.
But they don't. Eric Lichtbau in March: New">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/politics/12lobby.html?_r=1">New Earmark Rules Have Lobbyists Scrambling:
Let's play that again. Who adopted the policy? The Democrats. And that's what changed.But it doesn't change. It just centralizes power more. Why is this good? It isn't. Libertarians and Republicans and conservatives should surely agree, if they hold to their alleged principles:
And this is true: And this: I agree with Republican conservative Jeff Flake, and with Mr. Herson.Who doesn't?
(I could give more up to date detail on what's since happened, but then I'm going long.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Russell quotes:
Just citing McManus' analysis, which I find right on. Especially his discussion of the role of nationalism and national identity in fascism, and it's absence in any meaningful way from corporatism.
Leading to Hartmut's comment:
Hugenberg was an ardent nationalist, Murdoch is a pure "vaterlandsloser Gesell" who for example foments anti-German hatred in his English and anti-English hatred in his German media.
The Koch family is in the same tradition, profitting from Stalin while starting Bircherism at home.
Correct, IMO. The loyalty is not to nation, but to the rights and privileges of property ownership, most especially capital.
I disagree with wonkie's sense that there is something hypocritical in Republican adherence to this. They aren't dissembling or trying to hide a secret "privileges of wealth" agenda behind a patriotic veneer. Their understanding of what the country is about *is* the enhancement and preservation of the rights and privileges of private property, most especially capital.
The extreme Republican position is that the function of government is to enforce contracts, coin money, and provide for defense, full stop. And when I say "extreme", I'm referring to spectrum, not to frequency of occurence.
There's no distinction in their minds.
If somebody thinks I'm overgeneralizing or painting with a too-broad brush, feel free to explain where and how. I'm all ears.
We need to eliminate corporate personhood.
You're singing my song dude.
But that's circular, and I don't see how, absent increases in the current kind of protests building to a crescendo of near-revolutionary fervor.
Well it's a start.
Posted by: russell | February 22, 2011 at 11:35 AM
I think in some cases it is not about 'what the country is about'. They would serve any system that would benefit them.
Posted by: Hartmut | February 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM
We need to eliminate corporate personhood.
A separate thread on this maybe? I know we've had the discussion before but I think that was a digression from something else (campaign finance law, I think).
Posted by: Ugh | February 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM
Always feels good to be warmly welcomed at The Kitty no matter how long or short the interval away.
The orchestrated assault on unions moved me to write last night because of organized labor's historic roots in making a better life for generations of millions of Americans and the realization that it is one of the last vestiges to save a vibrant middle (unless you are placing your bets on the Democratic Party and the Great Obama, who have done more to save Wall Street and the banking industry than the millions who have lost their jobs or earning power and who have been foreclosed on largely because of the Disaster Capitalism created by said Masters of the Universe).
Unfortunately, I am late for work and thus prevented from making more sense of that argument.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 22, 2011 at 12:36 PM
It seems like i(critical tinkerer) have earned limits on posting, so let me try
No there is no accepted definition of fascism, you are right, and it carries a very negative stigma that is mostly used as epithet due to wide variety of integration of economic and social system so it can apply to any economic system. Most of the definitions are based on defense of their idealogical perfect economic system where anything negative is put into fascism.
My definition is based on what other economic systems are describing: relations of economic fundamentals.
capitalism- state regulates the corporations and owns only utilities and services that private fails to provide. And emphasizes property rights
socialism-where state owns all utilities by default and also owns companies where exist higher risk of manipulation and damage to the population. Banks, railroads, transportation, healthcare are treated as utilities.
communism- labor is the state and it owns and controls pretty much everything.
fascism- corporations control the state and it uses power of government to control labor
Noam Chomsky has similar descriptions, more or less
my definitions are very broad and general, but i believe it should apply only to economic systems not to social structures, but since in order to control labor,fascism uses social structures in manipulation of it.
Arizona is more fascist in a sense of verbal wishes of the ruling party then the still present democracy allows it. Arizona would be fascist if based only on verbal communication then situation on the ground would describe.
Posted by: thin crithic | February 22, 2011 at 01:05 PM
"socialism-where state owns all utilities by default and also owns companies where exist higher risk of manipulation and damage to the population. Banks, railroads, transportation, healthcare are treated as utilities."
Please allow me to correct you, crithic.
In the America President Bush and President Obama have overseen -- 10 hellish years and counting -- the new socialism is one in which the banks, big pharma, big oil and pretty much the rest of Corporate America control the state.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 22, 2011 at 02:33 PM
The Republican party has no philosophy beyond the ends justify the means and thhe goal is to restore make us a facade democracy with the economic and social norms of Dickens; England.
Yes and no. The above sort of *is* a philosophy, appalling though it is. But I agree that there is a strong whiff of entropy to it, that it's sort of an 'automatic' disaster. In the words of the Poet: "I don't know what I want/But I know how to get it."
And I'd say that a nationalist *usually* doesn't actually give a s*#t about their country, as such. Even Mr Hilter blamed The German People at the end. Nationalism is another name for a certain kind of patriotism - the compulsory kind; the last refuge of a scoundrel.
We don't live in a fascist state, room-temperature comfort that that is (thank god were are only on the road to authoritarian plutocracy! Feel better?). We live in a politically dysfunctional state with a very powerful reactionary insurgency, the latter exacerbating and/or actually creating dysfunction with hopes that that will redound to its political advantage.
And it usually does. But this mid west thing might be a turning point. One has to keep in mind that this insurgency has had as much success as it has because their political opponents (the Dems) mostly allowed it to happen, with only a few pitiful squeals here and there. Having such a hapless opponent breeds recklessness and overreach. I hope this is those.
Posted by: jonnybutter | February 22, 2011 at 02:46 PM
Gary @ 11:21,
You'd better watch it, or I shall have to invoke the no true (small c) communist defense.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has (to any degree of widespread concurrence)successfully invoked the 'no true fascist' defense.
This should mean something.
And it goes without saying that there are, of course, no true Scotsmen.
Posted by: bobbyp | February 22, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Hi, Gary. If I might interject, in your discussion with CT re: fascism, you wrote:
Gary
I'm sorry, but, no, we're not living in a fascist state.
No matter what you project, or extrapolate, we have a Democratic President, Senate, we have courts, they're all flawed, we have major disagreements in this country, but there are no armed militias fighting each other, no... look, you can take anything, and view it in the most alarmist fashion, and predict it will continue in the worst way.
To which he responded:
crithical tinkerer
I just realized that you consider fascism as having militias fighting each other.
You seemed to take umbrage at that.
Gary
You just realized wrong. Please stop trying to mindread. I write carefully, as a rule. If I write something, respond to it. Don't imagine something else and respond to it.
Not wishing to take sides either way vis a vis fascism, but it does appear from your comments that you place some importance on fighting militias as a criteria for fascism. You're usually quite precise in your comments, so it seems odd to see you argue so strenuously against a claim you appear to have made, even if accidentally or through mistyping or haste. This lead to a giant wall o’ text in defense of you position (it ran to 21 pages on my particular screen).
Now, I realize I’m not a regular contributor, merely a lurker, but it seems that CT had a valid point, and that if there was a lack of clarity about your position, it quite probably came from your comment, and that if you did not hold that opinion (militia violence a necessary component of fascism) a simpler solution might have been to simply withdraw that claim or clarify your previous comment.
I appreciate a well-source response, as yours almost always are, but (in my very humble lurker’s opinion) they might benefit from a bit more brevity. Speaking only for myself, I find discussion threads easier to follow when commenters use links rather than block-quoting large sections.
Regardless, I really appreciate the vibrant discussion and don’t want to interfere with it any more than I already have. If this comment is out of line, please accept my humble apologies.
Posted by: John of the Dead | February 22, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Wanted to elaborate on my respect for organized labor.
Since 2003, I have worked in car sales, a field in which management treats it salesmen -- the front line of its business -- with casual indifference and, often, condescension.
On more than one occasion, I have heard a manager refer to salesmen as "a dime a dozen." Which may have been true before my time in the business.
Now, every time my dealership runs an ad on the internet or in the newspaper the response is amazingly paltry and the quality of the person who does respond is lacking (in social skills, intelligence and other things you'd regard as basic). This, in an age of 10 percent unemployment.
I remember back when the housing bubble first burst and our business started to go bad, too; numbers plunged. As a means of motivating, I guess, the owner read us the riot act and told us that many quality realtors and mortgage analysts would be looking for work and to take our jobs.
Not a one ever showed up.
Perhaps the skill sets aren't completely transferrable. It's a strange business. In eight years, I have seen guys who had just lost good jobs and who were considerably smarter than I but who hated this work, or were simply terrible at it, and were gone in weeks.
The hours suck. Management's thinking -- and thus managerial approach -- is still stuck in the heyday of the 70s and 80s when good money was to be made. And -- perhaps what turns off most prospective employees -- this is strictly a commission job. Not even a modest salary. In other words, if you don't sell, you don't eat.
So even in an era of 10 percent unemployment, it would seem despite management's outdated thinking salesmen are not a dime a dozen.
As far as I know, there are no unions for salespeople.
I've often wondered why.
And this is where my respect for unions -- and especially for those who organized them at the turn of the century when doing so meant risking life and limb -- comes in.
Let's say I wanted to start a union movement. Forget the three other departments here; let's just go with mine and my six co-workers.
Seven guys.
All of us, to a man, behind in our bills, some more than other (the seemingly never-ending Great Recession has not been good for business).
Yet I doubt I would get a single vote to join my movement.
What's more, I can confidently predict that at least two of those six co-workers -- suck-up types -- would rat me out to management and brand me as a troublemaker in the process.
And, in short order, I'd be fired.
So count me firmly on the side of the brave souls fighting the system in Wisconsin.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 22, 2011 at 07:11 PM
BTFB--welcome back. Please stay a while.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | February 22, 2011 at 07:35 PM
'Let's say I wanted to start a union movement.
I doubt I would get a single vote to join my movement.'
'As far as I know, there are no unions for salespeople.
I've often wondered why.'
You raise an interesting topic. Why would you want to be unionized? Except for the fact that the dealership has to approve your working there, are you not almost self-employed? Are there limits on how much time you spend on the job or on how many cars you can sell or how much you can earn? Maybe the amount you earn per transaction is too small so that you would need to close too many deals to make a lot?
It seems as if the union concept of exercising control over the labor output won't work very well in a 100% commission environment. What if one salesperson is so effective that his/her success rate is many multiples more than all the others. What's the union reaction? It is known how rate-busters were/are viewed in a unionized piece work environment.
I'm just suggesting some factors that might help answer the question.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | February 22, 2011 at 07:49 PM
Ugh
A separate thread on this maybe? A good idea, bookmarked.
Ideas for good posts are not a problem, though. :-)
But we do take requests. :-)
bedtimeforbonzo:
Vote early and often! Er, come on, come on, comment on! Bring your friends!crithical thinker:
I could say I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm going to take a wild guess that you had some kind of browser/Typepad problem and again have leapt to some conclusion.There's no limit on posting here, other than the posting rules. If you had any problem posting, it's with either Typepad, your computer, the internet, or some interaction thereof.
It also can depend on how you're signing in, if you time out, sometimes if you use too many links, Typepad doesn't give warnings, and there are simply innumerable possibilities.
Best thing is to try refreshing your browser, if that doesn't work, close it, make sure the process is killed, reopen it, try restarting you computer, try waiting a brief time, any number of possible solutions.
If all that fails, and you have a problem, try writing the kitty, though no promises as to how soon I'll notice or get back to you.
But if you think you're somehow being censored deliberately, then you're simply being paranoid.
You'll be informed if you've broken the Posting Rules, and given a warning, unless it's in a form that requires immediately dealing with (as soon as someone brings it to our attention, or we notice), and then we take it from there.
No one will deliberately interfere with your comments otherwise.
Thanks for your elaboration on your usage of "fascism."
I'll decline to get into definitions of isms further at this time.
I do suggest that use of these political labels as epithets are used way way way too freely, that it's destructive to productive political conversation and agreement in exactly the way you decry, and that calling people fascists, communists, or other extremist names is, absent extremely clear reasons based on extremely clear criteria, is a Bad Idea. You're free to disagree and argue back all you like, and vice versa. :-)
Iif you hang around, you'll learn that I am, as a lifelong editor, copyeditor, proofreader, writer, mass-market publishing minion (well, the latter I'm pretty much retired from, but I Hang Around A Lot), and generally precise person, someone whom I'm afraid does get very picky about usage, and most issues in general, though if I'm an *ssh*le about it, you're free to clap me on the ears, preferablly not too rudely, and say so.
I'm as human as the next person, and sometimes get annoyed when I shouldn't, and worse. I do get particularly annoyed when people tell me what I'm thinking, or mean, when they're, you know, wrong, or even when they simply make announcements about what anyone is thinking, what they "mean," and so on, when it's not what they've actually written, but as a commenter about this, I'm just another commenter.
I'm not a fan of the Governor of Arizona, and I'm not a fan of many of its state policies, of John McCain, Jon Kyl, or Arizona Republicans in general, he said rather mildly.
John of the Dead:
No need to ask, commenting is what comment threads are for, and the more the merrier. See above. I get prickly at people who don't read carefully, and who make assumptions, and worse, declarations, about what other people think. More so when they're wrong, and more so when it's me, but in general, no one can mind-read, and anyone who announces some variation of a mindreading claim is not, in my opinion, doing anyone, least of all themselves, any favors. But I say this as a commenter, not as a poster announcing any sort of rule. People are free to say what they want, and as a commenter, I sometimes should be more diplomatic, but I'm full of flaws.But to repeat, I don't think militias are necessary for fascism, but they're darned helpful as a pointer that we're on the way towards it.
I do have a tendency towards over-kill, and carpet-bombing both in posts and comments, and should do a better job of being gentler and shorter, I fully agree. You have a perfectly valid point there.
As for lurking, there's certainly no obligation to speak up, but you're more than invited to; we like to have comments, and encourage people to jump on in. How well you impress or disimpress anyone, or enjoy the rough-and-tumble, is another matter. :-)
But, really, this idea of "interfering" is something you should completely put aside. Comment away!
It makes some of us front pagers feel neglected and unread and sad, tragically tragically sad, and uterly wet and a weed if we don't get more comments, or at least, I do, I can't speak for any other front-pager, and don't.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 22, 2011 at 07:53 PM
BTFB---sales takes unique skills and the ability to not get hundreds of "no" or "I'll get back to you" responses without letting it get to you. It's not for somebody whose feelings are bruised easily, or for the shy or the meek. If you don't relate socially to total strangers almost immediately, you have entered the wrong field.
The problem I have with most (not all) car salespeople is they all seem to have read the same Zig Ziglar sales book, and when they pull that old "let me go talk to the manager" stunt, I want to scream.
There should be no such thing as 'full commission' sales. They should be salaried with bonuses. But it's brutal out there.
Have you tried for inside industrial sales? Take industrial abrasives, for just one example. I hear some of those folks make very good money.
After the Revolution, we shall fix that.
Welcome back, and ON WISCONSIN.
Posted by: bobbyp | February 22, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Gary,
"...they might benefit from a bit more brevity."
As constructive, and I do mean constructive, criticism, I feel this observation from that dead john guy is apt. This is as opposed to pedantic-a critique which was, alas, an honest misfire. Massive text and link rebuttals tend to induce MEGO, and practically nobody is going to open and explore all those links unless they really want to get in the weeds with you.
You might also try for a little bit more of the pithy at times (Wilde, Parker, Twain, Russell, et al). It generally misfires for me, but when it works, it is devastating.
One may quibble as to whether or not devastation of your opponents is the desired outcome for blog comments, but that is a topic for another day.
In Cheerful Solidarity,
bobbyp
Posted by: bobbyp | February 22, 2011 at 08:23 PM
Gary
Thank you for advice, posting fixed after restarting.
I admit i am guilty of attempting devastation of my opponents and i apologize to all that were affected, but i hope it got them on deeper thinking process as it did to me.
I still do not believe that i invoked Godwinn's law of blogging.
There is another step in Walker's waltz
"Madison – Today, Governor Scott Walker signed Special Session Assembly Bill 5 which requires a 2/3s vote to pass tax rate increases on the income, sales or franchise taxes."
from http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=227740
Posted by: crithical tinkerer | February 22, 2011 at 09:40 PM
FWIW, Gary, I would argue that the Tea Party movement is largely a fascist one, albeit without a militia. I mean, God help us if there's ever a Tea Party Freikorps...
What's interesting to me is that the radicalism of the right in the US seems directly proportional to their positions of power; while the rank and file of these movements tend to be nothing worse than loudmouth bloviators -- nothing unusual there -- the leaders of these movements higher up seem to be genuinely crazy in a way that's genuinely frightening. That's in distinction with the left which, in the US, seems to reverse the trend: the rank and file tend to be considerably more zealous than the leaders.
As another random thought in this direction: it seems that the pattern of most American extremism is to buy into and co-opt the existing system rather than to fight against it. [The, say, Idaho militia movement notwithstanding.] To that end, I think there could an interesting argument that (say) police or military brutality could be indicators of a right-wing propensity towards violence in America in a way that it isn't really in Europe -- but I don't feel I have the expertise to explore it.
Posted by: Anarch | February 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM
Just be careful not to let the bastards wear you down.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | February 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM
"Just be careful not to let the bastards wear you down."
Slarti, sometimes you just rub me the wrong way, but that made me laugh.
But really, the observation was based on a true story....snot nosed kid graduates from podunk U.; somehow falls into selling industrial abrasives; makes truly good money.
I, of course, am green with envy. Such is life.
Posted by: bobbyp | February 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Perhaps the skill sets aren't completely transferrable. It's a strange business. In eight years, I have seen guys who had just lost good jobs and who were considerably smarter than I but who hated this work, or were simply terrible at it, and were gone in weeks.
As bobbyp says, being in sales takes a certain kind of personality and skillset-- it doesn't have to do with smarts or even a desire to do hard work. Once you "know yourself" well enough to know what you're good at and what you can handle, even if you're out of work and looking for a job, you probably know you won't be able to hack it in sales and don't bother to apply. The thing is that sales guys don't "cost" anything-- if they're working almost entirely on commission, they pay for themselves, so lots of employers always have sales jobs available, and if you can't find something else, you might end up in sales.
Posted by: Tyro | February 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM
Thanks Gary for the inof about earmarks. I agree that earmarks are generally beneficial expenditures and don't amount to much of the budget anyway--that's part of why I said that it was an example of the kind of false issue Republicans thrive on. I remember following this a little after the elctioh: the House R's seemed to take the issue somewhat seriously--meaning they were serious about limiting the amount of money spent on eramarks--, but, if I recall correctly, the Senate R's wanted to forget about it. But maybe I am remembering that wrong.
Posted by: wonkie | February 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM
"You raise an interesting topic. Why would you want to be unionized? Except for the fact that the dealership has to approve your working there, are you not almost self-employed? Are there limits on how much time you spend on the job or on how many cars you can sell or how much you can earn? Maybe the amount you earn per transaction is too small so that you would need to close too many deals to make a lot?
"It seems as if the union concept of exercising control over the labor output won't work very well in a 100% commission environment. What if one salesperson is so effective that his/her success rate is many multiples more than all the others. What's the union reaction? It is known how rate-busters were/are viewed in a unionized piece work environment."
Good points, GOB.
But I believe nearly every job or profession could benefit and be bettered by union representation.
If I led my hypothetical union of car salespeople, I would collectively bargain for a token salary of $350 a week -- a sum that I don't think would send my owner into the poorhouse or cause him to sell his yacht at his summer home in Avalon, N.J.
On the other hand, it would greatly help his employees -- especially during those inevitable times when they have a bad week or month. It would lessen the stress and tension during such times and would probably have the result of shortening such periods and actually wind up making the owner even more money.
I would collectively bargain for one Saturday off a month. This, too, may wind up benefiting the owner if you believe happy employees are more productive employees -- it might even result in attracting good prospective salespeople who otherwise rule out working a job in which you must give up every Saturday of your adult life.
So these are just two things -- and, to my mind, the two most important -- I would collectively bargain for. They hardly seem radical to me. I imagine Samuel Gompers, if he were alive today, would agree.
But then, that's one thing today's labor movement is lacking -- great and visionary leadership.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 23, 2011 at 12:40 AM
"But then, that's one thing today's labor movement is lacking -- great and visionary leadership."
Disagree: there's plenty of that to go around. What they lack are sufficient members.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 23, 2011 at 04:33 AM
What they lack are people willing to join. That does tend to lead to insufficient members... But never fear, they've got a solution: Abolish the secret ballot!
The union membership rate in the private sector has been dropping for years, it's down to 7.2%. It's been rising in the government sector for years, now up to 43%.
Is this because the government is a monstrously evil employer, driving people to unionize in response? No, it's because public labor unions are a handy way for politicians they favor to launder the public's tax dollars into campaign donations and campaign workers. So they put a very heavy thumb on the scale, favoring unionization. After all, if the union drives up the cost of government, it's not coming out of THEIR pockets...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | February 23, 2011 at 06:19 AM
Right, because public employee union members are exempt from state and federal taxes.
That IS the clear implication of what you just said. Right?
Posted by: Phil | February 23, 2011 at 06:30 AM
Wrong.
State and federal taxes are irrelevant for calculating the cost of state and federal employees. A state could, just as easily, were it not politically infeasible, exempt it's employees from taxation, and pay them less. The same at the federal level. But double their pay, and you double the expense, even if some of the money is just recirculating through the tax system.
I mean, is that your argument: Pay raises for government employees are cost free, because the pay is taxed? That would only be true at 100% taxation...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | February 23, 2011 at 07:24 AM
I'm not making an argument, I'm poking holes in yours.
(Because it is a stupid argument btw.)
Posted by: Phil | February 23, 2011 at 08:18 AM
Actually, no. Whatever other errors in argument Brett has made, this is not one of them.
Unless the entirety of the state budget is payroll, and all of payroll is union. But I don't think there are any states that operate under those conditions.
If unions get a pay raise of (say) 5%, and as a result the state's expenditures increase by 1%, requiring a bump in taxes (which might not involve ANY bump in income tax) and other revenue, the employees always win. Except for the case where all the state's expenses are payroll, and all of their revenue is flat-rate, no-deductions income tax. But as I said, that state doesn't exist.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | February 23, 2011 at 08:26 AM
BTFB--wouldn't it be true that if sales are off and salespeople are having a bad month, so too is the dealer? If the dealer is to make good on employees' incomes when there is no business income, where does that money come from? A third issue is that once an employee becomes salaried, the Fair Labor Standards Act is triggered and overtime kicks in. Commission sales people, as I understand it, work extra and odd hours in exchange for the opportunity to make more money. The employer isn't going to authorize overtime pay to get people to work extra hours. You'd be stuck with whatever commissions you could generate on a 40 hour work week. You might not like that.
My issue with unions is that people are not fungible. Russell is good at what he does because he applies himself. He knows people who are marking time, waiting for the whistle to blow. Do Russell and the minimalist get the same pay, benefits and job protections? Suppose the minimalist is a year senior to Russell and payroll needs to be trimmed--can the employer look at Russell's superior performance and make a qualitative judgment? Can Russell be promoted ahead of his peers and even his seniors?
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | February 23, 2011 at 09:44 AM
Let the Governor speak for himself:
Read the article and listen to the phone call:
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045
If this is a real deal, pretty good David Koch impersonation. I mean, compared to subhuman filth Breitbart's white trash pimps and 'hos.
Hey, don't take my word for it, take Walker's.
He took the call from the Citizens United "outside agitator".
Posted by: Countme--In | February 23, 2011 at 09:45 AM
...public labor unions are a handy way for politicians they favor to launder the public's tax dollars into campaign donations and campaign workers.
One: why are you worried only about labor unions 'laundering money'? What about everybody else? I would argue that our campaign finance system is legal corruption - all the money is laundered through politicians. Do you think other interests don't get political favors - big, expensive ones - from politicians? I know this point has been made upthread, but I just wanted to pose it directly.
Two: I notice that our movement conservatives tend to fight, at least rhetorically, yesterday's battles, kind of like the cold warrior neocons in the last administration. It's certainly convenient for them. Brett is worried about Huey Long; others complain about Liberal Bias in the media, big city Machines, etc. It's 2011 guys! You still have abortion to flog, but other than that you'll need to put down the tract for a minute and look around. Big Spending and/or crony capitalism Government is the problem now, and it's the 'conservatives' who are mainly responsible for it. When Huey Long shows up, let's talk.
However, enough! This WI, et. al. deal is raw politics, and has nothing to do - really - with principle. This is about punishing people who work for and donate to Democrats. This is about using state power to crush your political opponents. Ain't beanbag.
Posted by: jonnybutter | February 23, 2011 at 09:50 AM
Brett: "The union membership rate in the private sector has been dropping for years, it's down to 7.2%. It's been rising in the government sector for years, now up to 43%. Is this because the government is a monstrously evil employer, driving people to unionize in response?"
Things I strongly suspect Brett is aware of, but for some reason has neglected to mention:
1. People don't just unionize because they think their employer is monstrously evil. They also do it when their employer is just run-of-the-mill evil or even OK, because they would like to protect their own interests.
2. Private-sector employers benefit from much lighter scrutiny of their behavior during union drives. The NLRB under GW Bush notoriously turned a blind eye to the use of misinformation and intimidation to turn employees away from organizers, but this has always been a problem-- it's not that government employers are happy about the prospect of unionization, but there is crap that private employers can get away with that even the worst public-sector manager cannot do. (I can back this up only with anecdata, having worked for sleazos on both sides of the divide, and having witnessed a mind-bogglingly oblivious NLRB ruling that entirely ignored blatant violations by my private employer, whose over-the-top paranoia about the union would've been funny if not for the real consequences.)
3. Even if employers behaved well, regulatory and judicial decisions have steadily whittled away the ability to unionize. This one, for instance, would've turned me from a worker into a non-unionized "manager" (with no change in my duties) if I'd been working in the private sector.
4. And it's not as if US labor law was particularly good in the first place; workers in entire industries have been stripped of protection ever since the 1930s. A Human Rights Watch report in 2000 summarizes the result:
If there's a thumb on the scale, as Brett puts it, in favor of public-sector unions, there's a big set of buttocks on the scale against them in the private sector.
Posted by: Hob | February 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM
Also, though it makes no difference to speak of, Brett's numbers are of unclear provenance. The figure of 7.2% unionization in the private sector is from January 2010-- and that study made it clear that it had not been a steady drop, but had fallen precipitously during the Bush years. The same study showed 37.4% in the public sector, not 43% as Brett says. The most recent BLS study has it at 36.2% public, 6.9% private. I can find no source at all for 43%.
Posted by: Hob | February 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM
You have to remember, Hob, Brett is among those who believe that, in a union drive, the two sides who should be voting are not "pro-union workers" and "anti-union workers," but "pro-union workers" and "management/ownership."
Posted by: Phil | February 23, 2011 at 12:07 PM
"A third issue is that once an employee becomes salaried, the Fair Labor Standards Act is triggered and overtime kicks in. Commission sales people, as I understand it, work extra and odd hours in exchange for the opportunity to make more money. The employer isn't going to authorize overtime pay to get people to work extra hours. You'd be stuck with whatever commissions you could generate on a 40 hour work week. You might not like that."
As for salaries cutting into the owner's profits, one thing I would note is that when we are having a good month (and by today's standards, we had a good January and, almost inexplicably, we are on pace for what would be a record February even in pre-recessionary times) there is usually one guy who doesn't partake in the prosperity (the odd man out, if you will).
Last month, it was my buddy Paul. This month -- depending on this last week -- it will be me or newbie Matt. (An aside about how cold the business can be: Despite his 30 years in the business -- and yes, at age 58, he's not what he used to be -- management gave Paul an edict after his 5-car Janauary. Sell 10 cars, or you're done. I was worried I would be getting that speech March 1, but now that I am up to 8, I have been sleeping better).
My hypothetical demand for a $350 weekly salary wasn't to give one a cushion so as not to work as hard or be less motivated to sell more.
Rather, I would argue it to be a cushion for those inevitable "slumps" even the best salespeople suffer -- be it a week or two -- to allow them to have gas money, lunch money, maybe even pay a bill or two. And perhaps just as important, allow them not to press as much (the more you press, the least likely you are to sell).
Last month, during a 10-day period, I sold seven cars -- at point one sale five days in a row. By day three, I figured I'd be going home that night with good news for the wife.
This month, I went a 10-day period without selling a single car. By Day 4 or 5, I became gun shy to even "up" a customer, something that still happens to the 30-year lifer whose desk is next to mine.
I am not a golfer, but I imagine it's a connundrum that even the best golfers experience when you hear they suddenly "lost their swing."
And another thing: That salary would pay you for the "real" labor you do. Before getting into the business, I figured they had "people" who move the cars, clean the cars and get the lot back into proper order when snowstorms attack -- like yesterday's, or the other four or five we've had this winter, or the six or seven we had last year. Yeah, they have people to do that job -- they have us, commissioned employees, thus free labor to do such jobs (a pretty cost effective ploy for ownership).
McKinney Texas makes a good point about if we made a salary management would be reluctant to pay us overtime in a profession in which 40 hours just won't cut.
A normal work week for me is 48-50 hours. Last week, since we worked Sunday, it was 55 (oddly enough, even though we aren't paid by the hour, for some reason, we are required to fill out a time card).
Anyhow, addressing the OT thing, in bargaining for that $350, I would compromise for being paid the minimum wage.
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the minimum wage -- certainly not a living wage -- is $7.25.
So, lo and behold, my typical 50-hour work week would equate very closely to that reasonable $350.
Then again, knowing how ownership in the car business thinks, this small hourly wage might not be their only dilemma -- I think it would rather not be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Finally, I will introduce a common and apparently age-old practice known as "flooding the floor" management uses to limit the amount they have to pay car salesmen by reducing their opportunity to hit various unit bonuses.
Our dealership recently did this with our growing Hyundai department, where the 5-man sales team was doing pretty well, hitting good-paying bonus levels, even in the face of a recession. Management's response was to increase the staff to 7 -- now those original 5 guys, who stuck it out when times were really tough, aren't doing as well.
Epilogue: I realize my desire for commissioned salespeople to is a pipe dream. The reason I have outlined the reasons why it would be a good thing is to demonstrate, I hope, that just as was the case when Samuel Gompers paved the way for an actual middle class management/ownership -- those authors of Disaster Capitalism, corporate greed, the housing bubble and other wretched excesses -- will always have the upper hand over the working class.
P.S. I am off on Wednesdays and Sundays, so I am not writing on company time.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Bedtime, what you guys need is a ccop. Can the mangement and run the place yourselves.
The stereoptype of the lazy union guys is an old one. The Wobblies were demonized as "I Won't Work" even though they were protesting twelve hour work days and worked a hell of a lot harder than the people in management of timber companies.
It's divide and conquer. It's rationalizing a way to justify screwing over one's fellow citizens. Its easy for someone from the safety of their own economic security to believe in stereotypes that help justify screwing over someone they don't know on theexpectation of a small benefit for themslevs.
I bet that if the publicn employee uinons were widely percieved as black union busting would be easier for Republicans.
Posted by: wonkie | February 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM
BTB: Good to see you again and thanks for these comments, from which I've learned some things.
Phil: I'm very familiar with Brett's stated opinions and style of argument. I choose not to say more about them in general because I'm still sentimentally attached to the ObWi posting rules, so I figured I'd just comment on the facts.
Posted by: Hob | February 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM
"It's divide and conquer. It's rationalizing a way to justify screwing over one's fellow citizens. Its easy for someone from the safety of their own economic security to believe in stereotypes that help justify screwing over someone they don't know on theexpectation of a small benefit for themslevs."
Agreed.
And it all equates to why we no longer have a real middle class in this country and, instead, have become a nation of haves and have-nots.
Too bad he was a lying, cheating, snake -- most voters saw right through him even before it became that became crystal clear -- but John Edwards was onto something regarding his Two Americas.
Right idea. Wrong guy to deliver it.
Too bad the Great Obama can't seem to decide which America we are or which America he wants us to be -- in real life (not well-delivered speeches; as great as his oratory is, I find it cheap, not inspiring. President Obama is stuck on "winning the future" -- as bland a slogan as I've ever heard -- while I am focused on winning the present.)
----
"I bet that if the publicn employee uinons were widely percieved as black union busting would be easier for Republicans."
Agreed again.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM
"I bet that if the public employee unions were widely perceived as black union busting would be easier for Republicans."
This is already the case in some areas. SEIU in particular represents a lot of non-white workers, and also engages in pro-immigrant activism, and the right wing does try to make hay of this. Limbaugh in particular is very fond of mentioning SEIU in the same sentence as ACORN and the New Black Panthers, and it's pretty clear what he's getting at.
However, the message sometimes gets a little muddled since the right keeps trying to paint labor as anti-white and anti-black at the same time, as in this Fox piece, or the zillions of "SEIU thugs attack black man!!" articles about the Kenneth Gladney incident.
Posted by: Hob | February 23, 2011 at 01:12 PM
BTFB - Seems a possible approach to dealing with lean periods would be for proven salespeople to be able to draw against future commission sales. This would undoubtedly involve some limits and some trust, maybe the trust is not there since you don't sound very upbeat about your dealer/salesperson relationship.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | February 23, 2011 at 01:32 PM
"This would undoubtedly involve some limits and some trust, maybe the trust is not there since you don't sound very upbeat about your dealer/salesperson relationship."
Ironically, my dealership has a reputation -- and from what I know, it is -- for being one of the fairest and most progressive in the area.
Full disclosure: I am distrustful of authority by nature.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 23, 2011 at 01:57 PM
If I may ask for The Kitty's indulgence for a moment, I want to tell my dear friend wonkie -- after almost three years following the untimely deaths of my beloved CoCo and Bowser -- we are again (since August) a two-dog household.
Joining the indestructibe Hamilton, our loud and proud 16-year-old Beagle, is Cody, who was supposed to be my dream Black Lab.
Finally getting the OK from my wife to become a two-dog family again, I had been following the website pawsforlife.org -- a wonderful rescue in Chesapeake City, Md., run, amazingly, by just four dedicated souls -- and found Tank.
Just one visit and I knew he was the one. Friendly and 5 -- I no longer have the time or patience for a pup -- Tank, being a Lab, had plenty of energy and appeared simply majestic to me.
So when my wife and son joined me a few days later to bring him home, I was as happy as I had been in a long time.
Except my wife totally -- and, I mean, totally -- freaked at the sight of this gigantic, drooling, in her eyes, domestic wrecking ball.
Would her reaction had been different if I had fallen for a smaller Lab? Don't know. Perhaps I should have realized he was named Tank for a reason.
Anyway, I knew if we took Tank home, he and I would be spending most of our remaining days in the doghouse. So I figured we go home empty.
Then Olga says, "Why not this one, Honey?" All along, this smallish (to me) white bundle of fur had been sitting on her lap, overdosing on the attention -- Cody, a Pappilion mix (the French dog named so for his huge butterfly-like ears), had been allowed to roam freely, uncaged, because of his size and all-around easy nature.
I took one look at that precious little dog and imagined him adorning Paris Hilton's side, not wrestling with me in the backyard.
Then I looked closer and saw how happy my wife and son looked -- not to mention 2-year-old Cody -- and realized this was going to be my big Black Lab.
And now, of course, I am Cody's favorite and I simply adore him. He's a charmer, a lover, and the most comedic canine I have ever had. Wednesdays are our favorite -- when we are home alone a great deal and free to nap as we please. He's even sparked renewed life into the 112-year-old Hamilton, who, I think, might live forever.
While I still need to take Wellubutrin and Effexor, Cody -- or any dog, to my mind -- is the perfect complement to help get me through those dreaded blue periods.
And sometimes things do work out for the best.
A few days after taking Cody home, feeling guilty and still thinking of that big Black Lab, I sent the lady who runs Paws For Life a pack of tennis ball for Tank.
Soon after, the big Black Lab was adopted. Pictures on the website showed him on what looked to be a small farm where he was happily diving into a small lake.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 23, 2011 at 02:48 PM
Though I have no idea how to justify this in terms of the Blogospheric Users Relations Pact (BURP for short), we WILL have an open thread on pets on Friday. I know John Cole and Balloon Juice will never forgive us, but sometimes, the natural order of things has to be shaken up.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 23, 2011 at 05:23 PM
In this indifferent world, where people become more and more estranged, it's really nice feeling to be that someone you miss and worry about!
Posted by: Coach Footwear makes horrible products! | February 23, 2011 at 08:10 PM
BTFB:
I'm so glad you are back.
I'd like to see a front-page post on your disappointments with the Obama Adminstration.
Gary?
Cleek could go full Monty.
I have pragmatic views on this topic, but still, I'd like to burn down the entire edifice.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 24, 2011 at 12:24 AM
Thank you for the endorsement, Countme--In.
But I am afraid I would succumb to my tendency to write with more emotion than reason. And, in doing so, Gary would eat my lunch -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
I have not read these pages in many months, but I am sure I am not alone in feeling the Great Obama has not been the working man's friend. Not to mention the poor. Cutting home-heating assistance for those who need it in his current budget proposal? Pathetic.
As someone who despised George Bush, his inept predecessor, I feel it is only fair to note President Obama's latest broken campaign promise -- to stand firm with labor to the point he would put on "comfortable shoes" and march with it if collective bargaining rights were ever in peril. (Of course, Mr. Obama hasn't made an appearance in Wisconsin let alone walk any picket line.)
On his MSNBC show tonight, Lawrence O'Donnell showed the clip of the President saying just that at a 2007 campaign rally, further proof that the man who offered so much hope and change to so many is and always was just another politician.
Since he's been in office, it's almost as if the Obama Administration has ignored perhaps the No. 1 thing that continues to keep the economy (and unemployment) from truly rebounding: the housing crisis in all its different but related forms.
I'm not sure "foreclosure" is in President Obama's vocabulary, which is unfortunate because the ongoing crisis in this country will keep so many millions of Americans from "winning the future."
And don't tell me about his HAMP program.
As someone who applied for it twice in 2009, I can tell you it offers mostly false hope and no change and is especially maddening unless you find taking one dead-end road after another enjoyable.
I made out pretty good -- it doesn't take much Googling to find out that President Obama's focked-up HAMP program, due to its inartful application, actually precipitated the foreclosures of some applicants. The ultimate blindside.
Unlike the millions who have already lost their homes -- and, yes, I realize, each of us bears responsibility for our financial lives and the federal government isn't in the business of bailing out its citizenry -- I have managed to avoid such a fate the last three years.
This time last year -- behind by two payments with a third due soon -- I received a pre-foreclosure notice from Wells Fargo. I was scared and angry. I also found the notion of a pre-foreclosure letter almost humorous in the friendly but threatening way it was written.
Falling behind by three mortgage payments is usually a death knell. But I was finally able to prevail upon the CFO at work after the HR manager refused to let me take a hardship withdrawal from my 401k on the grounds that I had yet to receive an actual foreclosure notice. She must be a Republican.
Now I am in the same predicament, close to three months behind after a year of making ends meet in our paycheck-to-paycheck life.
Now I must beg and plead again -- you do not mind humiliating yourself if it means saving your home -- for another hardship withdrawal.
It's Groundhog Day, just not as funny.
And so, I've stayed away from the only blog I have ever regularly been a member of its community.
My spirit is not where I would like it to be in order to truly enjoy the rough-and-tumble of debating and commenting on the politics of the day. I admire those who do. But I am tired. Some days, I care. Some days, I don't.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 24, 2011 at 11:48 PM
"I don't think we're back to the Seattle General Strike of 1919, but I approve."
Here, here.
The past two weeks of the Wisconsin Walkout has been the best thing to happen to the labor movement in a long, long time.
For the generation or two of workers who benefited from hard-fought wars of labor's past -- yet unaware of why they have it so good, or not as bad as it could be -- have seen a new light that has shown the union movement isn't the big, bad thing they might otherwise were led to believe.
Polls have shown most Americans stand on the side of the Wisconsin workers, a majority that should only increase now that Scott Walker's real motives -- bust labor, not save the state -- have been revealed. (I saw a commenter say somewhere when Walker went off half-Koched in that tell-all phone call he never once mentioned the state's budget crisis he was purported to be so worried about.)
Not all Americans approve of unions. We know that.
But approving of, and understanding, fairness is a different matter altogether.
Thank you, Governor Walker -- labor, and the Democratic Party, for that matter, needed a guy like you.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | February 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM