Skip to main content

And no, I'm not talking about the past anti-labor ties like former COS Rahm Emanuel who called labor unions "f-ing retarded" and condescendingly opined about "where are they going to go?" if they expect more from Democrats. No, I'm not talking about the NAFTA and China PNTR hatchet man that helped crush US industry before he became mayor of the President's home town of Chicago attacking the teacher unions that helped elect this President. And I'm not talking the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and JP Morgan Executive that also worked with Rahm and the Clinton administration to pass NAFTA either.

Of course, there still are plenty of anti-labor ties to choose from such as Jeffrey "China! China! China!" Immelt who serves as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers while retaining his post as chairman of the board and CEO of the GE; the non tax paying conglomerate that outsourced its X-ray division from Wisconsin to China. Of course I don't need to which brings me to the main point of this piece.

(h/t Rick Pearlstein)

In Leaked Docs, Honeywell Cites Obama Ties As Key to Anti-Union Strategy

An image of Obama from the leaked Honeywell document is captioned "HON has great relationships with Federal officials."  

In These Times has exclusively obtained a leaked internal Honeywell document outlining an anti-union strategy that includes leveraging Obama administration connections. The documents suggest that the megacorporation is deeply concerned about recent union activity at its factories and the bad press that has resulted (one example cited is a Working In These Times op-ed).


“Honeywell is at significant risk of becoming the target of a national union corporate campaign and has no readiness plan in place to deal with this possibility," warns the document. A graphic identifies a number of unions and workers' organizations as potential sources of such a campaign, including SEIU, Warehouse Workers United, the AFL-CIO's Change to Win, UNITE HERE! and the United Steelworkers. Honeywell notes in particular the dangers of negative publicity, citing as one example an August 4, 2011 Working In These Times op-ed by Metropolis Honeywell employee and USW Local 7-699 leader John Paul Smith titled “What the Honeywell Lockout Taught Me About International Labor Solidarity.”


The third section, on Government Relations (GR), reveals Honeywell's hopes that its influence with the Obama administration can be leveraged to help combat union activity. Slide 18 of the confidential document states that Honeywell (HON) should “continue to grow positive relationships with elected officials, with federal agencies, focusing on local branches." These relationships, the document explains, "can be directed at union activity, if needed.” The plan suggests that Honeywell's Government Relations division can be used to “break up union cohesion across the country.” A picture of President Obama speaking at a Honeywell plant is included (see above), with a caption reading “HON has great relationships with Federal officials, focus is needed at the State and local levels."

I'm starting to realize why perhaps no effort was made at all when it came to the Employee Free Choice Act by this administration despite its promise, and why hard fought union health plans had to be on the altar for taxation instead of a tax on millionaires during the health care negotiations now implemented into law. It also perhaps explains why there are more free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea as well as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement looking to be fast tracked without the say of organized labor as well.

Organized labor doesn't want a grand bargain either. However, it's real which is why Senator Chuck Schumer and others have weighed in on it. As of now it's still going full steam ahead without really looking at our real economic problems which truly amount to not enough of a deficit as we are living below our means instead of above our means. For instance, even with the touted increase of exports by this administration our trade deficit is still 41.5 billion dollars and with every rise in exports our rise in imports have correspondingly risen as well meaning no significant difference from back in September 2010. You see, unless exports can rise enough while imports fall we won't close our trade balance.

We are being played for the fool when there's all this talk about deficit reduction while we're not even close to closing the trade deficit gap. You see, when there is a trade deficit(private sector), the government must, I repeat, MUST run a deficit to make up for the dollars we owe our trading partners who in turn put them into their reserves via capital flows. As I explained before, that is why public budget deficits are not dangerous and we need them to put dollars into private pockets in the private sector. However, we are a drastically unequal society so we also need unions in the private sector to help compress upper and lower incomes together in the private sector as it was during the post WWII period until 1979 on.

Even though the White House said it had no stomach for it, we still a guaranteed job for everyone who wants one directly from the government to shrink the supply of labor in order to raise wages in the private sector across the board. This will help to start to reduce income inequality for the past 33 years. We also need to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.66 an hour so incomes can keep up with inflation because they haven't since 1979 on. The remaining labor movement in this country is not big enough to have the power it once had over raising wages anymore thanks to Taft Hartley, right to work laws, and leaders who break promises to organized labor after elections are over and they no longer need them.

One also wonders that since social security is tied to wages and productivity has been rising for years, why don't we just raise the minimum wage a lot like James K. Galbraith said? That fix has an all around benefit to the entire economy and it benefits SS by transferring production from young to old as it is supposed to. But do we hear about that? No. We heard about the supposed need for another Greenspan Commission to cut benefits as the first Greenspan commission did raising the full retirement age to 67 where it is now when president Obama agreed with Mitt Romney on SS in the first debate. We either need to raise wages because it is a much needed fix all around or The White House just needs to shut up about Social Security which isn't in trouble and cannot go insolvent because we can always pay our debts with instantly created currency.

We also need the Employee Free Choice Act is just a first step and a much needed one. No more free trade agreements or WTO pacts giving corporate welfare in the from of patents to Big Pharma as economist Dean Baker lays out in his free online book.

The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive (PDF)

Patents and copyrights are both explicit government policies to promote innovation and creative work. They reward inventors, musicians, writers and other creative workers with government-enforced monopolies for set periods of time, and these monopolies allow the holders to charge prices far above the free-market price. For example, the nation will spend close to $300 billion in 2011 on prescription drugs.2 In the absence of government-enforced patent monopolies, the same drugs would cost around $30 billion, an amount that implies a transfer to the pharmaceutical industry of close to $270 billion a year, or about 1.8 percent of gross domestic product. It is close to 15 times current federal spending on the main government welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and it dwarfs the money at stake from a main goal of progressives: eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (Figure 1-1).
It's oddly not part of this whole grand bargain proceeding coming up which is pretty strange since lower prices for prescription drugs would be a boon to Americans' in debt who would then spend money in the economy because of the 270 billion saved going towards better purposes than directly to big Pharma's profits even though the deficit is a fake problem. These patents and the right for corporations to sue any government for enforcing labor or environmental standards are the real problems with all of these trade agreements. And when you're being told as you are right now that the government doesn't plan to run the needed deficits to make up for the capital flows flowing our of our private current and capital account can you honestly tell me that is good for labor or any working people in this country?

We know the truth about the rising exports being touted which cannot overtake rising imports along with it. We know that labor will eventually go somewhere else if the Democratic party mistreats, cheats, and abandons them. So we should all call on this administration reelected with organized labor's work despite being treated poorly to shed its' anti-labor and Wall St. ties in the treasury that would pay to keep labor down and their legislation dead on arrival.

This administration either needs to spend some time studying national accounting and why we need higher deficits to close the gap in our trade deficit or pursue a revolutionary change in global trade policy. We can have one or the other to support our industries but we can't ignore both and make believe the balances add up. This administration needs to shed all its ties with those that want to further bust up the remaining unions in this country.

Tell the President to find those comfortable walking shoes he talked about in 2008 wherever they have been for these past 4 years and dance with the organizers that brung him  as Molly Ivins might have said instead of the anti-union lobby looking to keep the boot on the working man's neck.

Originally posted to The Amateur Left on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:19 AM PST.

Also republished by Progressive Policy Zone.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This confuses the general and the particular (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, FG, Eddie C

    In general I think it's more than fair to say the White House has deep and pervasive relationships with Capital but episodic and self-interested (narrowly electoral) relationships with Labor.  That's a huge problem.

    But the Honeywell story is a non-story, from the looks of it.  They don't identify anyone in the WH (or Administration more broadly) whom they could leverage for their anti-union campaign.  It's point 18 (18!!) in a kitchen-sink document.  If it gets the discussion going, that's great news. But we shouldn't put any significance on it in isolation because it doesn't have any.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:32:25 AM PST

    •  honeywell shouldn't take this radical labor... (6+ / 0-)

      supporter seriously.  

      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

      by joe shikspack on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:42:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's specific enough to raise alarm (8+ / 0-)

      It doesn't specifically name the president, but it has his photo so it's pretty obvious it's the White House they are referring to. Detailing the plan and then mentioning federal officials they can work with at point 18 out of 61(yeah, pretty early) doesn't really offer much for the downplaying of this document.

      I'm more inclined to believe the workers in unions who have to work around Honeywell as far as whether this is a kitchen sink document or not.

      “These documents reinforce what we have believed all along that this is a company that isn’t interested in getting along with their labor groups. This also proves that they see us as a threat,” says USW Local 7-669 President Stephen Lech, whose photo is included in the document's description of the Metropolis lockout. “As far as us being mentioned so much in these documents, I am kind of honored that our union had that kind of impact. I am flattered that the company is going to fashion a whole plan based on the labor struggle at Metropolis. They learned a lot during that process and we learned a lot to, but we can change our labor strategy a whole lot quicker than theirs."
      Besides they have a history of this and are awful defensive about it saying, "It's just an intern!"

      Once again I refer to local 7-669.

      It surprises me that they are denying that this is their company policy, because this is exactly what we saw in Metropolis. [The authors] are mentioning things in this PowerPoint that show they know exactly what Honeywell is doing. They knew about Metropolis, the Burke Group, they had pictures of our pickets lines, detailed information about company structure and union activity. This doesn't sound like the kind of information mere interns would have. And what they say about working with government officials is exactly what they did during the Honeywell lockout.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:56:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Personally, I think everyone, and I mean everyone, (13+ / 0-)

    should be part of union, so long as the federal and state governments fail to represent employees in the development and enforcement of employment laws and regulations. That way, all businesses are operating on a level playing field. The problem is that there is such a wide gap in labor practices that many companies, especially small businesses, who want to take care of their employees feel they cannot if they are going to continue to compete (on price) with competitors who do not take care of their employees.

    Single Payer would also help because it IS harder for small companies to pay for healthcare than their larger competitors.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries.

    by Words In Action on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:44:04 AM PST

    •  I as well (5+ / 0-)

      Single payer would definitely help though we are starting to learn from studies from Demos that paying a living wage is not really that much of a crutch as initially thought though I know what you mean as in they think it will.

      The potential cost to consumers would be just cents more per shopping trip on average. If retail firms were to pass the entire cost on to consumers instead of paying for it by redirecting unproductive profits, shoppers would see prices increase by only 1 percent. But productivity gains and new consumer spending associated with the raise make it unlikely that stores will need to generate 100 percent of the cost. More plausibly, prices will increase by less than the total amount of the wage bill, spreading smaller costs across the entire population of consumers. The impact of rising prices on household budgets will be negligible, while the economic benefits of higher wages for low paid retail workers will be significant. Our study finds that:

      If retailers pass half of the costs of a wage raise onto their customers, the average household would pay just 15 cents more per shopping trip—or $17.73 per year.

      If firms pass on 25 percent of the wage costs onto their customers, shoppers would spend just 7 cents more per shopping trip, or $8.87 per year.

      Higher income households, who spend more, would absorb a larger share of the cost. Per shopping trip, high income households would spend 18 cents more, for a total of $36.80 per year. Low-income households would spend just 12 additional cents on their shopping list, or $24.87 per year.

      Thanks for weighing in, Words In Action.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:07:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  tipped and recced... (6+ / 0-)

    shooting the messenger to commence in 3...2...1...?

  •  I'm not seeing anything here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hillbrook green, Eddie C

    Yes, Honeywell hoped to use their connections to politicians to their advantage. Every company and every union tries to do that. So what?

    Is there any evidence that their strategy worked? Did Obama do something significant to help them? If not, then what you're quoting doesn't reflect on Obama at all.

    I've burned out on bloggers and pundits who seem to think Obama is the only branch of government. There's no magic wand Obama can wave to make the half dozen or so conservative Senate Democrats start acting like Paul Wellstone. When Congress is the problem (and it usually is) we need to organize to pressure them. Ignoring Congress and putting all the blame/attention on Obama isn't helping.

    •  I guess it's more of a concern to working people (7+ / 0-)
      Then, as soon as there are union rumblings at a non-union Honeywell plant, managers are instructed to inform Honeywell’s HR Department, which then informs Honeywell’s Labor Relations Department (LER), which "puts plan in place on the ground and immediately visits the site." The LER is told to dispatch one or two representatives from the Burke Group, a notorious anti-union firm that was used by Honeywell during the 14-month long Metropolis lockout. Next, an official boardroom is "set up on site to implement daily operations," including “employees paid to sit and listen to anti-union campaigns.” Honeywell supervisors are advised to obtain the proper legal assistance in struggle with unions, to secure Honeywell property and to train local security personnel in "warning signs of union activity."
      Myabe they got to you, too? Equating corporations with unions. Funny to hear the same thing from a Kossack as we do when the Citizens United decision is excused even though it's a false equivalence given the more democratic structure of organized labor.

      You ask:

      Is there any evidence that their strategy worked? Did Obama do something significant to help them? If not, then what you're quoting doesn't reflect on Obama at all.
      But you didn't read:
      Union activists believe that Honeywell’s federal ties have already enabled the company to call in government help when suppressing unions. In 2009, Honeywell threatened to use Marines to replace 500 United Steelworkers members in Blount Island, Fla. if the military contractors went out on strike. Honeywell had the military security clearances pulled on several of the union leaders, leading them to lose their jobs. In 2010, I exposed evidence that Honeywell cheated on qualification tests for scab replacement workers during the lockout at its Metropolis uranium facility; during the lag between my report and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission taking action, the scab replacement workers caused a number of accidents. In 2011, International Association of Machinists Lodge 778, employed as nuclear weapons workers at Honeywell’s Kansas City, accused the Department of Energy of abandoning its legal mandate by not stepping into to stop a concessionary contract Honeywell was pushing on the union. (Note: I have written over two dozen articles on this issue since 2009; for more details on the federal government enabling Honeywell anti-union strategy, see my November 2011 piece, “Is the Federal Government Helping to Bust Unions?”)
      I'm burned out on bloggers who proudly don't read, but react, ignore facts(like the NLRB and Department of labor are under the department if Interior under the executive branch) then aspout, "It's da Conservadems. It's all da Republicans!" except when reconciliation isn't used, filibuster kept which Democrats didn't use to block the Roberts court.

      Only ignorance of our political system and a lack of 60 votes during GWB's term and all the damage ensued could cause such cognitive dissonance.

      So yeah, ignoring reality and history is not helping. It also doesn't help when it's proven now you didn't read the article and just decided to post without thinking. Paul Wellstone didn't whine about 60 votes or excuse failure. he risked his seat before he died and voted against the war Democrats in the Senate could have blocked but didn't. Personally I don't find that excusing them or failure works. Standing up for what you believe in as Wellstone did does even in defeat.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:28:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, no then, Obama didn't help Honeywell. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eddie C

        I asked if you had evidence that Obama took action to help Honeywell. You posted information about nasty things Honeywell has done, but none of it involves any action by Obama, as your blog posts suggests.

        Glad we cleared that up.

        I didn't equate unions and corporations. You know they both lobby government, just like every organized group does. I like honesty. That doesn't make me anti-union. You can take your self-righteous indignation down a few notches.
        Your blog implies Obama is using his anti-union ties to help Honeywell. So far, you have posted zero evidence to support that claim. Throwing insults at me isn't evidence.

        •  Beg your pardon (7+ / 0-)

          This diary and subsequent comments described how this administration neglected to take several actions that would have benefitted the locked-out/striking Honeywell workers.  That neglect helped Honeywell.

          Honeywell's substandard operation of several nuclear weapons-related facilities, using strikebreakers, threatened the facilities' physical integrity and the nearby communities.  

          That substandard operation, with resulting incidents and neaer-misses, certainly would have violated the gov't contracts w/ Honeywell to perform adequately.

          The Feds could have threatened to pull those contracts PDQ, but didn't

    •  What? No Magic Wand? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Willinois, Eddie C

      Are you sure about that? A full 99% of Obama bashers are totally convinced that such a magic wand does exist. Can't you hear them clapping? If they just clap long enough and hard enough, they can bring Tinkerbell back to full health and then Tinkerbell can give Obama a magic wand.

      See. It's simple.

      Kind of like creating your own reality....

      There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

      by hillbrook green on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:58:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I should be alarmed (8+ / 0-)

    but I'm trapped inside a bitter shell of cynicism. Even when for a brief shining moment we had 60 senators, enough D's turned tail, including but not limited to sister Diane Feinstein,  so that Free Choice never had a chance of passage.

    I was a little glad I hadn't got my hopes up, because by then I'd been through several prior sell-outs of pro-labor laws; Clinton's anti-scab regulation, Carter's labor law reform, Ford's veto of the picketing law, and so on.

    I vote D just to keep from getting gunned down in the streets, we need to win victories primarily in the work place, anything won in the legislature is just gravy.

    Still, I am aggravated that we couldn't get more help in the Honeywell lock-out, since they have fed. gov't contracts and mismanagement of the stocks of virulently toxic materials could have killed thousands.

    •  I hear you, 6412093 (5+ / 0-)

      IT's hard to escape that bitter shell of cynicism given all that you laid out. Specifically given the president was a cosponsor of the EFCA. I find it increasingly ironic that the Nixon administration was more pro labor than all the Democratic Presidents since Carter.

      We do need victories in the workplace, and we do need to keep working for legislation however hopeless it may be. You haven;t lost as long as you are awake and you are and you know it's not OK that the EFCA went away and Taft Hartley has stayed.

      I understand and that is a great point specifically.

      Still, I am aggravated that we couldn't get more help in the Honeywell lock-out, since they have fed. gov't contracts and mismanagement of the stocks of virulently toxic materials could have killed thousands.
      Thank you,  6412093.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:40:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  'We' never had 60 Senators ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... hell, we haven't had a House majority for decades.

      Unless "we" includes people like Blue Dogs and New Dems, both pushing for the collapsing middle class to eat the same cake (with different social issues frostings).

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:07:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course they're different from the Republicans! (6+ / 0-)

    Look who supports them -- other Democrats!


    "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

    by Cassiodorus on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:46:46 AM PST

  •  So, let me get this straight... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eddie C, HamdenRice

    1) A bunch of guys who no longer work for the Obama Administration are identified as anti-Labor.

    2) Another guy who is not part of the Obama Administration but who participates in an outside-the-Administration advisory group on the economy is a CEO of one of the largest companies in the US and is thus obviously anti-Labor.

    3) Honeywell puts out something that basically says they want to be Obama's bff.

    This is what you have for

    This Administration's Anti-Labor Ties

    A little thin, don't you think?

    Oh, look. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

    by hillbrook green on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:50:10 AM PST

    •  Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe (7+ / 0-)

      that Barack Obama is committed to advancing the cause of organized labor in America? Not, does he "care" about working Americans in some soft feel-good sense. I'm asking a more rigorous question: is he actually a passionate supporter of the right to collectively  bargain and to strike in 21st century post-industrial America?

      The evidence for that is a little thin too...

      don't you think?

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:07:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  YES, I do believe that! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eddie C

        and I am a life-long Union Member (several different unions over the years, actually) who has been on strike since 1981.

        I do NOT think that the evidence is thin for my beliefs.

        And I do NOT believe that Barack Obama has a magic wand...

        ... as so many around here seem to believe.

        Oh, I forgot the magic words:


        Oh, yeah, don't want to be accused of failing to answer completely: yes, I do believe that he is a passionate supporter of the right to collectively bargain and to strike in 21st century post-industrial America.

        Look, the diarist made an assertion in the title of his diary that the Obama Administration has anti-Labor ties. He failed to provide any evidence in his diary. I pointed that out. If he or you or anybody else can provide proof of "anti-Labor ties" other than the fact that he talks to people who are anti-Labor and businesses wish he would be anti-Labor, then present it.

        Otherwise this is just unfounded speculation.

        The guy is President. Of everybody in America. It is his job to talk to both Union and business interests. He doesn't ignore Unions and he doesn't ignore business interests. That is his job.

        He talked to Romney during the debates and he talks with Republican Congresspersons regularly and he even has Republicans in his administration. Does that make him a Republican? He has talked with Pat Robertson, I believe. Does that make him a racist? He talks with white people. Does that make him white?

        If somebody wants to actually present some evidence, fine. Have at it. No evidence was presented here. It is just speculation.

        There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

        by hillbrook green on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:08:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, the President has a responsibility (4+ / 0-)

          to talk to both union and business interests. He has no obligation however to be "even-handed." He's entirely free to take sides in favor of labor, as countless Democrats have done before him.

          As far as I can tell though, his walking shoes are still in the box.

          In HIS heart of hearts, I think Mr. Obama believes that unions have served their purpose, that they were a necessary tool in the era of the robber barons, but now are quaint and obsolete. I think he truly doesn't understand that 21st century capitalists make Jay Gould seem like Jane Addams.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:28:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, everyone has at least one (0+ / 0-)


            Despite your "gut feeling" (h/t to Colbert), do you have any actual examples to back up your feelings? Are Union members and leaders being imprisoned by the US Government for exercising their rights? Are they being massacred as in Ludlow or the 1937 massacre by Chicago police? Are they being black-balled from government employ like Reagan did to the PATCO strikers?

            Is the Obama Administration meeting with Union members and leaders? Does he show respect in his statements about Union leaders and members? Is the Obama Administration proposing anti-Union legislation? Has Obama called for higher taxes on companies who ship jobs overseas?

            These are the kinds of things to look at so that you can have an opinion that can be described as credible.

            You see, when one has "feelings" about stuff without anything "concrete" to back up one's "feelings", just one's belief in one's "heart of hearts" that something is true, that is referred to as "speculation", not the truth.

            And last time I checked, there haven't been any "21st century capitalists" hiring thugs to assassinate Union leaders in the dead of night, at least not lately.

            Whereas someone like Jay Gould and his contemporaries in the 19th century and early 20th century would not have hesitated to employ that tactic. Witness the breaking of the IWW Bisbee strike in 1917.

            Sure, the "21st Century Capitalists" are undoubtedly selfish people who have no concern for the rest of humanity, but be careful when comparing apples and oranges. They are very bad people, but there is no reason to resort to hyperbole. The truth is damning enough.

            And don't accuse me of being anti-Union. I'm a life-long Union member, the same as my father.

            I just don't buy into theories that are based on speculation.

            There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

            by hillbrook green on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 02:09:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Have you read about the NLRB? (0+ / 0-)

        A president's main influence on organized labor is his appointment power to the NLRB - the National Labor Relations Board -- which has tremendous power over labor contracting bargaining.

        Google: "Obama NLRB Recess Appointments Thrill Labor, Infuriate Business"

        I'll take my cues from actual labor unions rather than pompous anonymous leftyish bloggers.

    •  How I see it (5+ / 0-)

      During a time period when Cote is actively attacking the unions on several fronts including a lock-out, and hiring strikebreakers,  the Administration props him up with perks, including speaking at the White House,  serving on a Gov't Commission, and traveling with the President to India.

      If only Obama knew!

  •  it's unfortunate that (0+ / 0-)

    we have that whole Congress thing. Too bad we didn't have our own representatives that we could press to legislate in our interests. I suppose that it is the President's fault that people vote for quacks,  but then, even some sane Democrat's balk when the wrong pockets might get hit. I think we should pass no legislation at all, especially when a piece of legislation is deemed horrendous before it is even written. Nobody is going to get all that they want, so why bother? Progress, rather than perfection is over-rated. .

    •  Odd that you mention the Congress ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... given the way that the DCCC went strongly to bat for New Dems and Blue Dogs ... as DownWithTyranny points out:

      There are 49 Democratic freshmen entering Congress in January. The DCCC actively backed (spent money on electing) 5 progressives who won-- Lois Frankel (FL), Raul Ruiz (CA), Annie Kuster (NH), Carol Shea-Porter (NH) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)-- and double the number of New Dems who won-- Ami Bera (CA), Scott Peters (CA), Suzan DelBene (WA), Elizabeth Esty (CT), Bill Foster (IL), Joe Garcia (FL), Patrick Murphy (FL), Dan Maffei (NY), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), and Brad Schneider (IL). Israel also wasted millions and millions of dollars trying to elect other New Dems and Blue Dogs who ultimately lost, while ignoring-- and ever undercutting-- progressives all across the country who ran.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:11:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republished to Progressive Policy Zone. nt (7+ / 0-)

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:26:52 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site