Jobs & Wages

The 2010 Elections: Bring ‘Em On!

Eric Lotke — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:10:17 -0800

I’m looking forward to the 2010 elections. We need them.

Many dread how badly the election is shaping up. Commentators predict double-digit Democratic losses in the House and further retreat from the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. We fear a progressive era strangled in its infancy.

But there’s a sunny side, too. The election can bring the fight out of us. We can turn complaints about how bad things are into complaints about how we got here and how long it will take us to dig out. Like in 2008, the elections in 2010 give us an opportunity to point out the failures of long conservative reign and dare conservatives to try to take us backward.

• Don’t like the deficit? Three times as much of it came from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (unpaid for) and the Bush tax cuts (without offsets) as from President Obama’s Economic Recovery Act.

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

• Don’t like the job situation? We lost 11,000 jobs in November. That’s bad. But we lost 533,000 jobs in November of last year, the crowning achievement of Bush’s presidency. It will take a long time to turn this around. But at least we’re turning.

Source: AFL-CIO

• Frustrated about health care reform? Me too. But don’t forget how bad it was. Health care spending rose from 13.8 percent of GDP when Bush took office to 16.6 percent last year — even as the number of uninsured grew by a million people every year. So we spent more every year but got less for it. In personal terms, the cost of a family premium more than doubled, from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

A few years ago, guaranteed, affordable health care for all was an impossible dream. Now it’s just a few votes away. Let’s thank the progressive forces that got us this far rather than assailing them for compromise. Save the attacks for the forces that compelled the compromise.

Other changes haven’t even begun to take effect. We’re beginning efforts to regulate financial markets so Wall Street serves the real economy, not the other way around. We’re taking baby steps towards energy independence, and even starting to make sure that the components of our new energy economy are made in America — so we don’t replace a dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on foreign manufacturing. We’re starting to reign in private contractors who took over public functions but left the public interest behind, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We want those things to happen. All that and more. But we won’t get there if we start circling the firing squad over who’s to blame over health care reform. We know who’s to blame. Obstructionist senators, obsolete 60-vote filibuster rules, and giant corporations who buy their influence. Our deep hole comes compliments of conservative ideologues who valued private interest over the common good.

The President doesn't talk about that much. In a non-election year, the leader of our great democracy chose to govern, not to campaign. Senators who wanted change tried in good faith to work with senators who preferred failure to reform. They treated gridlock like bad weather, a chance misfortune, not a deliberate strategy by the opposition party.

An election year can be different. We can bring the fight back — for the ideas and ideals that will put the government on the side of working people and heal our broken economy. The people want these changes. An election is a chance to fight. Bring it on.

The Doldrums of Young America

Armand Biroonak — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:25:37 -0800

Recent data from the Department of Labor shows the national unemployment rate has climbed over 10 percent. But that number does not paint the whole picture when taking a closer look at jobless figures by age demographic. For young adults in their late teens and early twenties, unemployment figures indicate truly dismal times.

Compared to the national average, young adults face substantially higher levels of unemployment. Those 20-24 years old face unemployment at over 15 percent, for those between the ages of 18 to 19, even worse at over 25 percent.

But this just continues a trend that young adults have faced for nearly a decade.

And unemployment is taking a toll. Historically, a majority of students rely on at least part-time employment to help cover the costs of post-secondary education, but many of those jobs have dried up in the downturn.

Think having a bachelor’s degree in hand will be the ticket out? Think again. Earlier this year less than 20 percent of 2009 graduates reported finding a job by graduation. And for those lucky to land a job, average salaries are down compared to the past. In fact, the average income for college graduates has fallen since 2000 by 12 percent (adjusted for inflation). Not to leave out mentioning, as college graduates find less pay or remain unemployed, their student debt while in school rose sharply , now averaging $20,000 for graduates.

Source: Census 2000 and 2008.

This dynamic group either entering college or joining the workforce are the seeds for America’s future success, but their dream of prosperity has wilted in these extraordinary times. The lack of employment translates to fewer opportunities to gain an education, own a home and stand on secure financial footing down the line. Hopefully these numbers will wake-up Congress and the Obama administration for the need of a long-term industrial and jobs strategy to put Generation X back to work. Now is the time for action before America's brightest and energetic turn disillusioned and a permanent blue.

It's not just my empty wine fridge

Louis S Revesz — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:28:46 -0700

In a recent interview for his new film, CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer impatiently asked Michael Moore why he was bellyaching about capitalism since he’d obviously done so well financially. Moore patiently replied that he was simply trying to do what the good priests and nuns had taught him to do: “to help the least among us.”

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been put off by years of the Church hierarchy lining up on the side of the powerful against the weak, and the rich against the poor—all mockeries of Jesus’ core teachings. But like my favorite documentarian, I, too, can trace my concern for human suffering to my early Catholic upbringing. And when I reflect on my education, it’s probably impossible to overstate the prominent role of civics in parochial schools.

The nuns encouraged us as high school students to read newsmagazines and learn about “current events.” And I did so enthusiastically—I subscribed to the big 3: Newsweek, Time, and US News & World Report. And that was just the beginning! Midway through undergrad years, I subscribed to more than 17 publications that ranged from Rolling Stone to Atlas: World Press Review to charter subscriptions for quarterlies on foreign policy and psychosynthesis.

So by the time my kids were watching Schoolhouse Rock on television and singing, “Well I’m only a bill, and I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill…” knowledge about government, culture, and public life had long been second nature, thanks to the good nuns and priests of the Diocese of Trenton, New Jersey. I’d even tell anyone who cared to listen that Catholic school kids didn’t need Schoolhouse Rock; they already knew how a bill became law, and why laws were important. (By the way, there was a Cold war comic book in Catholic grammar school that had a future Black US president as its protagonist. See: http://irishcatholichumanist.blogspot.com/2008/12/comic-book-predicts-af.... I remember looking forward to new issues.)

And unlike most people I know, I’ve often caused economic downturns in my own life. I’m not saying that because I buy into the uber-Capitalist ethos that individuals are responsible for their own success or failure—as if such an assessment could ever be made in a neutral environment where everybody gets a fair shot and all things are equal (ha-ha). No, I’ve willingly plunged myself (and my family) into constrained economic circumstances (they’d laugh at this euphemism for poverty) to doggedly pursue goals such as artistic achievement, public service, and spiritual growth.

Yet I’ve always considered myself fortunate. Born in the 50s, I’m well educated and my parents paid tuition for parochial high school and a small private college where I earned a BA (an accomplishment that I wasn’t able to pass along to my own children). And even though I worked part-time as a grocery clerk through most of my undergrad years, it was a union shop and I enjoyed pay that was much better than the minimum wage most other college kids were earning (although I could see that adults with families were struggling). I went to grad school in the late 70s, pre-Reagan era, when scholarships were still available, state-school tuition was inexpensive, student loans didn’t put you in hock with private banks for 30 years, and my $75 a week stipend as a teaching associate seemed to go a long way.

But that was over 30 years ago, and now one of my sons is indebted for a college education that doesn’t help him get a job, while my other son works at a job he dislikes and can’t dare leave because of healthcare for his family. Both of my boys could use my help right now, only its déjà vu and I’m a 20-something again, juggling bills and cutting back expenses to simply stay afloat while I scour want ads and call contacts and employment agencies or work for a week or two.

Of course, my last dozen years of employment have revealed a pattern. First, I worked 6 years in a typically robust NJ industry that serves pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for a typical (modest) salary and (good, but not great) benefits. 5 years ago, a new corporate parent takes over and dumps higher-salaried, experienced workers. Job search takes 3 months; result: better job, nice salary bump with slightly better benefits. I stay for 2 years. No harm, no foul.

But as pharmaceutical company pipelines dry up and the effect of mergers dissipate, a major client furloughs employees and brings other jobs in-house; so our corporate parent closes the NJ office. I’m transferred to New York City, but before I can spend more than 2 days in my new Madison Avenue office, the entire department and its dozen higher-salaried workers are let go. I lose my health insurance and never regain coverage. (COBRA is too expensive to be a real option then or now.)

Job search takes 6 months; result: freelance work, excellent pay, but no benefits. In18 months, workweeks are rarely 35 hours or more, they’re usually 20 or less. And over the course of a year, college grads are hired; freelancers are all let go. Job search takes 4 months; result: I’m hired as a consultant this time. Slight pay bump, but still no benefits. I haven’t had more than a 12-week stretch of full-time work in over a year now, with no prospects for long-term work until 2nd Q 2010.

I grouse to my wife that although my intermittent employment seems to barely pay for basics, it’s very bad on my self-esteem. Doesn’t anyone love me any more? My experience has priced me out of a job market that wants to preserve corporate profits by keeping wages low. Colleagues have been replaced and downsized by eager younger workers desperately looking for an economic toehold. Some colleagues have even lost jobs to overseas professionals who command less pay, get government healthcare, and can e-mail the work from any time zone. (Can anyone say: “It’s a flat world, after all?”)

Oh, I suppose one of my loudest gripes is that the 32-bottle wine fridge that my wife and I received as an anniversary present 3 years ago has sat nearly empty for a year! We’ve had to pass up buying even lower-priced wines and recession-inspired free shipping from great Sonoma County vineyards that we’ve visited in the past. Okay, I still buy a few bottles locally when a vintage we like is on sale; and sure, I look at vineyard and travel websites and blogs, but a vacation is out of the question for the foreseeable future. And If I don’t score a long-term gig soon, tightening credit and mounting bills will overwhelm us, never mind the seismic shock of a major health crisis for either of us.

But as I said before, I still feel fortunate. I’m well educated and have a good skill set. I can’t help but think that I’ll adapt. I have many friends and even some family members who are worse off though, seemingly with far fewer prospects.

In fact, I can’t imagine what’s going to happen to people who’ve been looking for work for longer than a year, sometimes much longer—or who’ve bounced around from one underemployment opportunity to another—only to see their cost of living increase and their ability to afford living decently shrink indecently. How in the world could we ever have let the safeguards against rapacious capitalism that were set up in response to the Great Depression be dismantled to give us the Great Recession? And how much lower will any of us have to sink until we fix the rot in the system?

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, D–Ohio, says in Michael Moore’s latest movie that Wall Street recently orchestrated a financial coup d’état that has essentially socialized their gambling losses. She tells Bill Moyers that mortgage foreclosures have increased 94% in her district and that banks make money even though ordinary citizens are forced into penury. Or read Matt Taibbi’s accounts about naked short selling and other non-productive feints and counterfeits of a run-amok financial sector that rakes in profits from peoples’ misery. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30481512/wall_streets_naked_s...

It’s time to update the toolkit. We need the second bill of rights envisioned by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt before he died and the Cold War derailed US progressives. It’s time to trust democracy again. It’s time to dethrone the kleptocracy, or perhaps more accurately, the plutarchy that calls the shots and makes our electoral politics a sham.

It’s not really about my empty wine fridge, at all. If I could magically restore a robust economy to everyone in the United States by never refilling it—even if it meant going stone, cold sober—I’d be okay with that deal. But it isn’t about magical thinking either. It’s about realizing that no one can really be wealthy or secure if the weakest links in the social fabric are constantly battered, beaten and abused. The public interest isn’t dead; we just need to see once again that it’s indispensible and start talking about public good in a clear way that will dispel the darkness of crony capitalism, especially the orthodoxy of the omniscient market perpetuated by Milton Friedman and his successors—often at the barrel of a gun.

Besides, when you reach a certain age, it should be okay to indulge in a bit of vino, even if your politics are progressive, don’t you think?

Productivity Rose, Workers Didn’t

Eric Lotke — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:53:26 -0700

Today’s “Productivity and Costs” data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics contain what looks like good news. “Labor productivity increased at a 6.6 percent annual rate during the second quarter of 2009.”

The Associated Press adds context to the data: “Worker productivity, the single biggest factor determining living standards, grew at the fastest pace in nearly six years in the spring while labor costs fell by the most in nine years.” That sounds like good news. “Increases in productivity can help boost living standards because companies can increase wages financed by rising output.”

So why aren't workers celebrating?

First, what the AP and the BLS call “labor costs,” most of us call a paycheck. The biggest decline in nine years isn’t good news. Real hourly compensation dropped 1.0 percent last quarter.

Then, we have the irony of productivity. Read the definition with care: “Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours.” In other words, if you make more stuff in less time, you’ve increased your productivity. That’s intuitive.

But watch how it works in real life. In the manufacturing sector, productivity grew 4.9 percent. But that growth came because output fell 9.8 percent and hours worked decreased by an even bigger 14.0 percent. So if you do the math, it’s a 4.9 percent increase in productivity.

But if you work the line, it means your output is down and your hours dropped even lower. Yes, you’re more productive — making less stuff in even fewer hours.

Source: BLS

But that’s not the sound of a happy workplace. That’s the sound of an economy grinding to a halt. Who's listening?

asddf asdfgfd

asddf asdfgfd — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:21:26 -0800

jonas hodges 24
rules of engagement
it happened tomorrow
rip the runway 2009
katharina kuhlmann
og mack
intimate
nick.com/kca
after the final rose
simply divine brownies
campbell family haunting
monif c
wsfcs
cherry mash
bachelor winner

David Sirota

David Sirota — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:43:08 -0700

The Obstructionists on the Fair Pay Act

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:41:04 -0700

Here is the Senate roll call vote on HR 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is designed to allow employees adequate time to discover and file claims against employers who violate equal pay laws. The law would counter the effects of a Supreme Court ruling that bill proponents said put unreasonable time limits on the ability of workers to find out that an employer was paying them less than a colleague because of their gender.

Forty-two senators voted to filibuster the bill. Their votes effectively blocked the bill from further consideration. As in many other bills that have come before the Senate, a minority group of conservatives have exercised veto power over legislation favored by a majority of the Senate and a majority of the American people.

Sessions, Jeff (R-Alabama)	No
Shelby, Richard C. (R-Alabama)	No
Murkowski, Lisa (R-Alaska)	No
Stevens, Ted (R-Alaska)	No
Kyl, Jon (R-Arizona)	No
McCain, John (R-Arizona)	Not Voting
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-Arkansas)	Yes
Pryor, Mark L. (D-Arkansas)	Yes
Boxer, Barbara (D-California)	Yes
Feinstein, Dianne (D-California)	Yes
Allard, Wayne (R-Colorado)	No
Salazar, Ken (D-Colorado)	Yes
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-Connecticut)	Yes
Lieberman, Joseph I. (I-Connecticut)	Yes
Biden, Joseph R. (D-Delaware)	Yes
Carper, Thomas R. (D-Delaware)	Yes
Martinez, Mel (R-Florida)	No
Nelson, Bill (D-Florida)	Yes
Chambliss, Saxby (R-Georgia)	No
Isakson, Johnny (R-Georgia)	No
Akaka, Daniel (D-Hawaii)	Yes
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-Hawaii)	Yes
Craig, Larry E. (R-Idaho)	No
Crapo, Mike (R-Idaho)	No
Durbin, Richard (D-Illinois)	Yes
Obama, Barack (D-Illinois)	Yes
Bayh, Evan (D-Indiana)	Yes
Lugar, Richard G. (R-Indiana)	No
Grassley, Chuck (R-Iowa)	No
Harkin, Tom (D-Iowa)	Yes
Brownback, Sam (R-Kansas)	No
Roberts, Pat (R-Kansas)	No
Bunning, Jim (R-Kentucky)	No
McConnell, Mitch (R-Kentucky)	No
Landrieu, Mary L. (D-Louisiana)	Yes
Vitter, David (R-Louisiana)	No
Collins, Susan M. (R-Maine)	Yes
Snowe, Olympia (R-Maine)	Yes
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-Maryland)	Yes
Cardin, Ben (D-Maryland)	Yes
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-Massachusetts)	Yes
Kerry, John F. (D-Massachusetts)	Yes
Levin, Carl (D-Michigan)	Yes
Stabenow, Debbie (D-Michigan)	Yes
Coleman, Norm (R-Minnesota)	Yes
Klobuchar, Amy (D-Minnesota)	Yes
Cochran, Thad (R-Mississippi)	No
Wicker, Roger F. (R-Mississippi)	No
Bond, Christopher S. (R-Missouri)	No
McCaskill, Claire (D-Missouri)	Yes
Baucus, Max (D-Montana)	Yes
Tester, Jon (D-Montana)	Yes
Hagel, Chuck (R-Nebraska)	Not Voting
Nelson, E. Benjamin (D-Nebraska)	Yes
Ensign, John (R-Nevada)	No
Reid, Harry (D-Nevada)	No
Gregg, Judd (R-New Hampshire)	No
Sununu, John E. (R-New Hampshire)	Yes
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-New Jersey)	Yes
Menendez, Robert (D-New Jersey)	Yes
Bingaman, Jeff (D-New Mexico)	Yes
Domenici, Pete V. (R-New Mexico)	No
Clinton, Hillary R. (D-New York)	Yes
Schumer, Charles E. (D-New York)	Yes
Dole, Elizabeth (R-North Carolina)	No
Burr, Richard (R-North Carolina)	No
Conrad, Kent (D-North Dakota)	Yes
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-North Dakota)	Yes
Brown, Sherrod (D-Ohio)	Yes
Voinovich, George V. (R-Ohio)	No
Coburn, Tom (R-Oklahoma)	No
Inhofe, James M. (R-Oklahoma)	No
Smith, Gordon H. (R-Oregon)	Yes
Wyden, Ron (D-Oregon)	Yes
Casey, Bob (D-Pennsylvania)	Yes
Specter, Arlen (R-Pennsylvania)	Yes
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-Rhode Island)	Yes
Reed, Jack (D-Rhode Island)	Yes
DeMint, James W. (R-South Carolina)	No
Graham, Lindsey (R-South Carolina)	No
Johnson, Tim (D-South Dakota)	Yes
Thune, John (R-South Dakota)	No
Alexander, Lamar (R-Tennessee)	No
Corker, Bob (R-Tennessee)	No
Cornyn, John (R-Texas)	No
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-Texas)	No
Bennett, Robert F. (R-Utah)	No
Hatch, Orrin G. (R-Utah)	No
Sanders, Bernie (I-Vermont)	Yes
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-Vermont)	Yes
Webb, James (D-Virginia)	Yes
Warner, John (R-Virginia)	No
Cantwell, Maria (D-Washington)	Yes
Murray, Patty (D-Washington)	Yes
Byrd, Robert C. (D-West Virginia)	Yes
Rockefeller, John D. (D-West Virginia)	Yes
Feingold, Russell D. (D-Wisconsin)	Yes
Kohl, Herb (D-Wisconsin)	Yes
Enzi, Michael B. (R-Wyoming)	No
Barrasso, John (R-Wyoming)	No

Cancerous Conservatism Debilitates Workers

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:25:40 -0700

Perhaps the ultimate workplace expression of conservative "you're-on-your-own" ideology is FedEx Ground, where all of the workers who deliver packages are not FedEx employees but are independent contractors.

FedEx sells that as "the ability to grow your own business." But for Jean Capobianco, a FedEx contractor who was the subject of a profile in Sunday's New Work Times, it meant that FedEx could fire her for, in effect, having cancer.

FedEx is among the most aggressive users of independent contracting as a way to get out from under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the bane of conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, which derisively calls it a burdensome "Depression-era labor law," and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which touts independent contractors as a way to "avoid some of the legal and financial drawbacks of being an employer."

Drawbacks such as paying Social Security and payroll taxes, compliance with wage and hour rules, providing health and other benefits and allowing workers to choose union affiliation should they want to do so.

FedEx, as The Times reports, exercises almost total control over worker schedules, what they wear—even, Capobianco was quoted as saying, how workers wear their hair. Federal law says that workers can only be considered independent contractors if they have a degree of actual independence in setting the terms of their employment. But the Labor Department has been notably acquiescent in what labor activists, and legislators in a number of states, say is rampant abuse of the rules governing classification of independent contractors. In the absence of federal action, states have had to fill the void with court suits and legislation.

There is a bill in the Senate (S 2044, sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.) that would require the Labor Department to more aggressively police abuses of independent contractor classifications so that employees will in fact have all of the rights of employees. The legislation has not moved very far in the Senate. There were roughly 10 million workers classified as independent contractors in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report. Their rights deserve the attention both on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail.

♦ ♦ ♦

Another conservative outrage against workers—a Supreme Court ruling that makes it practically impossible for workers to file claims against employers for equal pay violations—is expected to get some favorable attention in the Senate this week.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (HR 2831) would undo the damage done by the court's conservative majority, which ruled that Ledbetter, an employee with Goodyear Tire and Rubber, could not recover damages for being paid less than men doing the same job because she did not discover the pay disparity quickly enough. (Because individual workers' pay is usually confidential, pay disparities could be undetected by workers for years, as it was in Ledbetter's case.)

The House has already passed this bill, and the Senate is expected to act on it Wednesday.

How serious is this issue? Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. In other words, the average woman had to work from January 2007 until today to match what the average man had made by December 31.

Teachers Won't Stay in the Profession

Alex Carter — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:11:52 -0700

Nearly half of all teachers leave the profession during their first five years.

Public School Teachers Not Paid Enough to Keep up with Soaring Costs

Alex Carter — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:03:18 -0700

Over the past 10 years, the average salary for public schoolteachers increased only 1.3 percent after adjusting for inflation, not enough to keep pace with the soaring costs of housing, health care and gasoline.