Showing posts with label Workers' Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Workers' Rights. Show all posts

Monday, September 2, 2013

Workers Get Little Respect

I thought Paul Krugman was being hyperbolic in the last sentence of the following paragraph:
It’s all hard to imagine now. Not the bit about financial crisis and wage cuts — that’s going on all around us. Not the bit about the state serving the interests of the wealthy — look at who got bailed out, and who didn’t, after our latter-day version of the Panic of 1893. No, what’s unimaginable now is that Congress would unanimously offer even an empty gesture of support for workers’ dignity. For the fact is that many of today’s politicians can’t even bring themselves to fake respect for ordinary working Americans [emphasis mine].
However, it's 12:35 pm on Labor Day and I have checked the Twitter feeds of Speaker John Boehner, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell's press office. (McConnell apparently doesn't have his own account.) I also checked the timelines of Kristi Noem, John Thune, and Tim Johnson.

Only Eric Cantor has a tweet honoring working people. Strangely, it's from his @GOPLeader account not his @EriCantor account.

Nancy Pelosi also has a tweet about Labor Day. She tweeted it on August 30, and it seems to be an effort to create a political issue rather than show respect for American workers.

Jean Giraudoux famously said, "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made." I'll offer the Plainsman corollary: if you can't get people to feign respect for you, you're totally screwed.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Romney Won't Be Able To Help Workers

David Brooks makes a powerful critique of the Republican Convention:
But there’s a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run their race. I don’t see what the party is offering the waitress with two kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.
Brooks and everyone else looking to see what Romney is offering that waitress or factory worker may spend a lot of time searching in vain. In a lengthy article examining Romney's tenure at Bain, Pete Kotz writes,
Yet the smartest guys in the room thought they could run the plant better than the people setting production records.

"They were getting rid of old managers and hiring new managers that didn't have any steel experience," Morrow says. "Some of the guys were nice guys and everything, but they didn't have a clue what was going on."

Many of the new supervisors were ex-military, people who believed that grown men and women are best motivated by punishment. Before Bain, says Morrow, "everybody got along."

Afterward? "They wanted to run the plant like a disciplinary environment. They wanted to discipline people for getting hurt on the job. They wanted to put us in an environment like a war, where we were always fighting with them."

Romney was charging GSI $900,000 a year in management fees to run the company. The Kansas City mill received $900,000 worth of ineptitude in return.

Although Bain borrowed $97 million to retool the plant so it could also produce wire rods, it left the rest of the facility to rot.

To save costs, Bain went miserly on everything from maintenance to spare parts and earplugs. Equipment deteriorated. Because the new managers didn't know how to repair it, "they'd want to rent a new piece of equipment out instead of maintaining what we had," Morrow says. The waste and inefficiency was breathtaking.

Bain's plan all along was to streamline the company into greater profitability, then reap the rewards with a public stock offering. But the exact opposite was happening. Even Roger Regelbrugge, whom Bain installed as CEO, knew the debt was crushing GSI from within, according to Reuters. If a public offering didn't materialize, the company would collapse.

Steel was about to enter a periodic downturn. Countries around the world were locked in a war of tariffs and government-subsidized production, creating a glut and driving down prices. Romney's strategy of the flip was never meant to endure difficult times.

Workers saw the end coming; they were particularly worried that Bain was badly underfunding their pension plan. So they went on strike in 1997, bringing a traditional Rust Belt flair to the festivities by littering the streets with nails and gunning bottle rockets at security guards.

When it was all over, the steelworkers union agreed to wage and vacation cuts in exchange for extra health and pension safeguards should the plant close.
Under a President Romney, workers' protections will be reduced. Workers will be punished for the ineptitude of their managers, and forced to do more with less. Meanwhile, a few investors will make a tidy profit while the workers worry about having enough for retirement and medical emergencies.

Romney and his Randian running mate will produce these results not because they are evil men but because they are professionally and philosophically ill-equipped to deal with a fact that Brooks succinctly asserts:
The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more than the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable people to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.
Throughout most of the summer, Romney tried to make his career at Bain central to his campaign. At the convention, he seems to have wanted to switch gears and make his personal virtues the paramount reason to vote for him. Romney has indeed helped people in need. He apparently acts out of a sense of noblesse oblige in the best understanding of the term. Neither his work at Bain nor his personal benevolence have prepared him to use the levers of power to "construct circumstances" that will allow the waitress, firefighter, or factory worker to recover from the economic hardships they have undergone since 2008.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

State Workers' Rights Slip Slidin' Away

The Argus Leader reports that state employees are losing the right to appeal layoffs.  Those who support the change apparently agree with the following sentiments.
Employees in the private sector don't get to appeal layoffs, and at least state employees get a justification, said state Sen. Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton, who voted in favor of the rule changes.
"I think that is more than what you see in the private sector," she said
Senator Hunhoff's justification for her vote shows the weakness of justifications: they don't have to be based on sound reasons.  Just because a protection or a rule doesn't exist in one situation doesn't mean it should be eliminated everywhere.  In short, a justification takes only twenty seconds to manufacture and about three minutes to write out and check for grammar.

Hunhoff's larger point that private sector employees don't get an appeal isn't much of an argument.  It doesn't explain why appeals are bad.  In fact, one could argue that public employees getting to appeal being laid off justifies private sector employees getting a similar appeal.

Further, conservatives frequently extol the virtue and purity of the market and the profit motive.  If they're being honest, then a private sector employer will protect an employee who is quirky or a gadfly as long as the employee helps the employer make a profit.  Public sector employees serve at the whim of political appointees.  I will grant that there are civil service protections, but decicions such as this one are slowly chipping away at those protections.  The gadflies and whistleblowers have one more reason to be a paranoid and look over their shoulders to see who's watching..

Finally, the Argus article points out that the appeals process was used only twice over the past 15 years, so it wasn't a burden to anyone  This decision seems to be an effort to follow the precedent to strip workers of their rights that leaders in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, and Florida have undertaken.  Was there a mass email?