There's an interesting article in the February 7 issue of The Nation, on
BARD. It gives the incomes of several of the top corporate CEO's in our
country. The article is about a tax loophole which allows the incomes to be
taxed at a lower rate than the incomes that most of us earn from working.
Their incomes are classified differently. I can't remember the name of the
category in which they are placed, but they are placed there specifically so
lower taxes will be paid. The highest income was 35 million dollars
annually. The lowest was thirteen million dollars annually. These were just
the top ten. Perhaps people would be a bit more realistic about their self
importance if our newspapers listed information about the top incomes in a
lead article on the front page each week, along with statistics about the
percentage of this country's wealth that is held by the top ten percent of
our wealthiest citizens.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 6:59 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Paul raises some interesting thoughts.
He asks if someone earning $50,000 per year and supervises others would
still be considered to be in the Working Class. Yes. The wage the person
earns, or the number of people they supervise has no bearing on their own
position on the Class Ladder. The question is, who does that supervisor
answer to? Unless that person is being trained from the ground up by their
Ruling Class peers, they are controlled by the Ruling Class. More than just
how much money they earn or how high up the ladder they climb, there is much
more to it.
For example, who controls the market for that which they are producing? And
who determines where the manufacturing plant is located, and the price of
the product, and how many employees it will take to produce the items? Who
determines the price of the apartments and homes that the workers will have
at their disposal? Who determines the community services to be provided?
Back when Cathy and I earned $50,000 each, we still considered ourselves to
be members of the Working Class, because we had no real control over our
lives.
Unless you consider living in a little larger home and driving a fancy late
model car, and belonging to a golf club, or taking cruises to be your
measure of personal freedom and independence, you are still a member of the
Working Class because you are nothing more than a resource for the benefit
of the Ruling Class.
We have been led to believe that our personal worth and our status comes
from our possessions. We have been suckered into the notion that a fancier
automobile means that we are more important than those around us. And being
more important means that we have more Freedom.
Some of my friends say that this is the way the world is and they are going
to get what they can and enjoy it to the limit, and to Hell with anyone
else.
Okay. They make it clear to me that they do not give a damn about the needs
of those in their community who are unable to care for themselves. The
little children, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the homeless.
They do not see these as people in their Class. They look down on them and
feel superior to them, often seeing them as subhuman. They are the product
of long years of brain washing. But they are dangerous to any hope of
raising up a more equitable government.
I've babbled too long, so I'll talk later about the importance of organizing
unions, and being involved in their operation.
But remember that the Ruling Class operates on the Divide and Conquer
theory.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/8/16, Paul Wick <wickps@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,etc.
Questions: is someone who for example make $50,000 a year and
supervises people still a member of the working class?
I'm not opposed to collective-bargaining, I actually think it's great
- in theory. My beef however is that unions even in friendly territory
make few attempts to expand their membership-base. Being content to
exercise the political influence they have over us in blue states, and
not caring that their way of life is funded by tax dollars (in the
form of public employee
salaries) paid by people who will never enjoy the same kind of benefits
that's not workers solidarity it's "we've got ours, sucks for you."
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chuck,
Well put. Even sheep know the value of herding together. Far too
many working class folks have been hood winked into thinking they are
rugged individuals. What they are is isolated fools.
The Ruling Class is organized. It would only stand to reason that we
working class folk get ourselves organized.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/4/16, Charles Krugman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
well as a blind person I got much further ahead through public
sector union
jobs than jobs in the private and public sector that weren't union jobs.
Without union jobs being available I had to take risky offers and
settle for
working with fly-by-night employers and many questionable circumstances.
Some of those I was able to turn around and others I walked from so
its not
a question of any conspiracies, it is a question of reality. Many
white collar workers have had an attitude that they were above
belonging to a union as they were professionals that didn't need it.
This was especially true with many social workers and attorneys that
I have come in contact with
over the years.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wick
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 4:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Chuck,
As noted in yesterday's (2/28) New York times union membership in
Wisconsin
has plummeted precipitously since union membership was made optional
for public employees. There is no conspiracy unless one is
politically active; people just want to pay their bills, and bread
must come before ideas.
The
age-old question in politics is what have you done for me lately?
All the union movement can answer is victories achieved when my
great-grandparents were raising their children; you can only live on
the fumes of past glory for so many years. I might feel differently
if unions were out there trying
to organize private sector workers; but they don't even bother
except scattered victories with janitorial workers in Hotels etc. in
California - they don't even bother with white-collar private sector
workers who form the
backbone of those who are already unionized i.e. government workers.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender
"ckrugman"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the problem is that in many places they are prevented from joining
unions
by politicians that further their agendas by being antiunion.
Michigan and
Wisconsin are prime examples and there are similar attempts in
other states in the midwest and south. Unions need to be given a
level playing field which has been taken from them by draconian
measures in states like
Michigan and Wisconsin.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Wick
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Chuck,
So three 95% of the population not unionized are just dupes of the
corporatocracy? No thinking person could refuse to join a union?
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 22, 2016, at 9:48 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender
"ckrugman"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yes, workers like this woman need a union to protect them from
their ignorance as they are preyed upon by right wing groups that
use them to undermine the unions and they don't know it until its
too late.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 6:45 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
My feeling is that workers like this one should definately be
represented
by
public unions so the original court decision was flawed. And I
suspect that there are more facts that aren't being reported in
the story.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul ;
Wick
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] What's wrong with unions?
To those of you who think trading unions are the greatest thing
since sliced bread.
Worker quits union but union won't quit (charging) her .
The Oregonian Feb. 17, 2016
Harris v. Quinn gave home care workers the ability to cancel union
memberships and dues. Maybe the Service Employees International
Union hasn't heard As offensive as this scheme may be to those who
believe government should operate transparently and in good faith,
some observers might be inclined to shrug and point out that it
also ended up helping workers.
After
all, the addresses of home care workers are no longer subject to
public disclosure thanks to the passage of House Bill 3037. But
those who take such a charitable view of events should consider
the experience of a single home care worker, Maryann Rose, who has
tried to disentangle herself (and her
wallet) from a union that sought the passage of HB3037. Sticking
up for the little guy, indeed. Both events - the stalling and the
attempted disentanglement - occurred in the wake of a June 2014
decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court. In Harris v. Quinn, the court determined that
personal assistants like home care workers aren't full-fledged
public employees in that they are hired and fired by their
private-sector clients. For that reason, the unions that represent
their bargaining units cannot charge nonmembers fees in lieu of
dues, as is common practice in public employment in many states,
including Oregon. The practical effect of this decision is that
home care workers can now save money by either dropping their
union memberships or not joining in the first place. Gurney is the
Oregon coordinator of the Washington state-based Freedom
Foundation, which dislikes public employee unions about as much as
Cookie Monster likes cookies.
Gurney
requested the names and addresses of home care workers in order to
explain their rights under Harris v. Quinn. One such worker is
Rose, who in February
2014 - months before the Supreme Court's decision - signed a
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) membership
application that permits
the
deduction of dues from her paycheck, according to a federal
lawsuit filed
on
her behalf last week by the Freedom Foundation. So far, no problem.
But
the
application contained a provision making the deduction
authorization "irrevocable for a period of one year from the date
of execution and from year to year thereafter. To revoke her
authorization, Rose was required to send the union a written
notice during a 15-day window that opened only once a year on the
anniversary of her authorization's execution. Given the ease of
signing up for membership and the difficulty of stopping dues
payments, you have to wonder whether the SEIU consulted the
playbook used by people who peddle cellphone contracts. Or maybe
it's the other way around.
Anyway,
at the time Rose joined the union, the financial reason for doing
otherwise wasn't very strong. After all, the SEIU still had the
ability to charge nonmembers in-lieu-of fees that were comparable
to union dues. But Harris
v.
Quinn gave home care workers like Rose the ability to save money
by canceling their union memberships and ceasing dues payments.
And that's exactly what Rose tried to do, according to the suit,
which was filed in federal court Friday. In November 2015, Rose
sent the union a letter resigning her membership and asking that
deductions for dues cease.
She
received a letter from the union in December confirming the
resignation of her membership in SEIU. However, the letter
continued, "deduction of dues will continue until such time as you
revoke the dues check off authorization you signed ... in the
manner and in the time periods set out in that authorization.
According to Freedom Foundation attorney Nick Dagostino, the
deductions had not ceased as of early February, notwithstanding
the fact that Rose is no longer a member of the union. This
behavior is illegal, he argues. If unions may not collect fees in
lieu of dues from nonmembers, why would it be OK for them to
collect dues from nonmembers? Heather Conroy, executive director
of SEIU Local 503, declined in an email to discuss the lawsuit,
except to call the Freedom Foundation "an organization dedicated
to
dismantling unions like SEIU" and to dismiss its chances in court.
Time
will
tell whether Conroy's legal prognostication is correct, but her
union's treatment of Rose (and, according to Dagostino, many other
workers like
her)
speaks volumes about its respect for the very workers it represents.
Shouldn't it be just as easy to quit a union and stop paying dues
as it is to join and start?
Sent from my iPhone
