Posted on 11/13/2006 12:54:14 PM PST by SmithL
After years in "a defensive crouch," as one union official puts it, organized labor sees an opportunity in the new Democratic Congress for action to help workers — from raising the minimum wage to improving pension protections.
Union workers voted Democratic in the House races, 67 percent to 30 percent. And others in union households voted almost as strongly Democratic, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the networks.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sees the elections as a "mandate for a union agenda."
Likewise, says Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO, "we have an opportunity to push our agenda for working families."
Organized labor will press for an increase in the minimum wage — the most likely item to be passed because President Bush may go along with it if certain benefits are included for small businesses.
Labor also:
_Wants changes in the Medicare prescription drug program to introduce price negotiations with pharmaceutical companies.
_Seeks to change bankruptcy laws that allow companies to abandon pension and health care commitments to workers.
_Opposes trade agreements that don't protect workers' rights.
The unions also will push for improved mining safety laws, increased retirement protections and expanded health care.
"One of the best ways we can address stagnating wages and lost pensions and health care is to restore the bargaining power of workers," Samuel said.
The most effective way to restore that bargaining power, he said, is passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow formation of a union once there is majority support and increase penalties for management violations of efforts to organize. Current procedures that call for an election can be drawn out in ways to campaign aggressively against formation of a union, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I wonder how the union folks feel about amnesty?
Minimum Wage hike means an automatic raise for many union workers, one which no one will even have to negotiate, with contracts tied to minimum wage.
This is a biased headline. It should read, "Organized Labor Pushes Pro-Union Agenda."
How about they ask Nancy Pelosi to hire some union workers at her vineyard?
You are so mean. Don't obscure the discussion with . . . facts. Sorry, I just had to do that.
The GOP should add an amendment to any minimum wage bill that disconnects labor union pay raises to the min wage. Make the demorats explain how raising union wages helps the "poor".
How uppity of them!
Many years ago, labor leaders regularly consulted with both political parties.
Republicans and conservatives need to assess issues on their individual merit, not on whether the people supporting them are political allies or adversaries. Just because organized labor supports something, it doesn't mean that it's always a bad thing. Too many people engage in group mentality and managed debate.
It's all Pelosi's fault!
Greedy thugs.
If any Freepers STILL don't have a clue...you all need to seriously consider exploiting the current skills you naturally have and others that you can quickly learn, to diversify yourself and make yourself employable to your family, friends, neighbors and local community.
We'd go back to the days of the Butcher, the Baker and the Candelstick Maker if I had my way. ;)
Husband and I decided years ago that we were going to work for ourselves from here on out. So now we:
*Have a Farm Stand 3/4 of the year (we have a small farm)
*Sell farm-fresh eggs and laying hens
*Sell books on-line (we're both avid readers)
*Started our own business in Computer Repair
*I do bookkeeping for our companies and other small businesses
*Both pick up part-time jobs once in a while; DH consults, I do just about anything
*and a SIL and I are starting another small enterprise in '07
Just look at your life and think long and hard about how much cr@p you want to put up with, how much more government interference you're willing to stomach, and how much more you can afford to pay in income and property taxes.
Then get back to me. ;)
The Republicans should have passed National Right to Work when they had a chance.
I didn't know FR had a Karl Marx PING list.
It is called Willie Green PING list :)
Seriously, Communists did not like trade unions (even if they were using them at times for tactical reasons). They did not like them because they saw them as a compromise that improves the life of workers and turns them away from revolution. They also have seen in trade unions, labor laws and social safety net, the reactionary intrigue of the Church.
Free Market ideology and Marxism are closely related.
Do you think those are good things?
Yes. You don't? For example, do you think that government should not be able to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices? If so, why?
Yes, I think they should not be able to negotiate drug prices. Does the government buy and sell drugs? Does the government buy and sell cars?
I don't think the government should be in the medicare business, period. Since they have been, since 1965, the cost of healthcare has risen disproportionately to other items.
If the government negotiates drug prices it is all of a sudden even more deeply and intimately involved in our lives. Once it is involved in price setting, which is what that is all about no matter the guise, it then distorts the free market. It also establishes itself more deeply into the healthcare provider industry, just one small step away from national healthcare. If they are handling something so large as the drug benefits for seniors, why not let them administer it all?
As I understand it, that was the plum promised Ross Perot for his help in splitting the Republican vote in 1992, that his company, Perot Systems, would administer a large portion of the nations healthcare programs (Hillarycare). Who will get that plum if this passes? Perot, again, or someone new?
Anytime government gets involved costs go up, not down. Providers have to navigate intricate paper work designed to document services provided and to eliminate cheating, which like most government rules and regulations only inconvenience the honest rather than stopping the dishonest. That increases the cost to the government and to the provider so the provider must raise prices. The taxpayer pays it.
Without all that, health services and health insurance, and the availability of both, would be cheaper and more varied and available.
Interesting. I assume you believe that government should be in the army interest? Should the government be able to negotiate prices with military contractors?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.