General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Real Reason the Middle Class Is Dead
http://www.alternet.org/real-reason-middle-class-dead***SNIP
The argument given against paying a living wage in fast-food restaurants is that workers are paid according to their skills, and if the teenager cleaning the grease trap wants more money, he should get an education. Like most conservative arguments, it makes sense logically, but has little connection to economic reality. Workers are not simply paid according to their skills, theyre paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers. And in an era when only 6 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, and when going on strike is almost certain to result in losing your job, low-skill workers have no negotiating power whatsoever.
Granted, Interlake Steel produced a much more useful, much more profitable product than KFC. Steel built the Brooklyn Bridge, the U.S. Navy and the Saturn rocket program. KFC spares people the hassle of frying chicken at home. So lets look at how wages have declined from middle-class to minimum-wage in a single industry: meat processing.
Slaughterhouses insist they hire immigrants because the work is so unpleasant Americans wont do it. They hired European immigrants when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, and they hire Latin American immigrants today. But its a canard that Americans wont slaughter pigs, sheep and cows. How do we know this? Because immigration to the United States was more or less banned from 1925 to 1965, and millions of pigs, sheep and cows were slaughtered during those years. But they were slaughtered by American-born workers, earning middle-class wages. Mother Jones magazine explains what changed:
[S]tarting in the early 1960s, a company called Iowa Beef Packers (IBP) began to revolutionize the industry, opening plants in rural areas far from union strongholds, recruiting immigrant workers from Mexico, introducing a new division of labor that eliminated the need for skilled butchers, and ruthlessly battling unions. By the late 1970s, meatpacking companies that wanted to compete with IBP had to adopt its business methods or go out of business. Wages in the meatpacking industry soon fell by as much as 50 percent.
In Nick Redings book Methland, he interviews Roland Jarvis, who earned $18 an hour throwing hocks at Iowa Ham until 1992, when the slaughterhouse was bought out by a company that broke the union, cut wages to $6.20 an hour, and eliminated all benefits. Jarvis began taking meth so he could work extra shifts, then dealing the drug to make up for his lost income.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)SharonAnn
(13,772 posts)This was about 1967-1968. She was pro-union because she understood that it was union wages and benefits that supported the families in our town. She grew up on a South Dakota farm during the depression and had a clear head about who was helping and who was hurting the average worker.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)but rules that prevented people from being easily fired. For example, they couldn't fire you for being old. Now look at what is happening in the US. Lots of older people have recently lost their jobs and no one wants to hire them. But they are still too young to claim SS. Unions protected people and gave them job security...something that allowed the middle class to thrive.
Workers need security and negotiating power. We need a labor union that represents everyone who does not fall into a typical traditional union. White collar workers need union protection as much as blue collar workers.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Workers do need that and in all the years of the health care industry, it's only gotten worse for people who were once considered highly skilled professionals.
Pretty hard to even unionize if you were not in housekeeping. Tried to do this in the 80's without respect from the "professionals" like me, who have lost all that ability now.
Case in point
I'm around another person who does diagnostics in another area in our out-patient setting who upon taking on extra patients to perform a procedure cause your boss wants to add to your schedule (it's the "as needed" thing in your job description)
then hearing that the person had to remind their boss of their lost lunch as they put in for the extra time, but the boss is out of the loop on what your hours really mean to them, because you, the person who took on more to accommodate (patients, boss, system) are now seen as a picky trouble-maker
There is NO protection, nor negotiating power, no neutral understanding of "if this, then you agree to that" clause
No clear job description
No professional management skills needed, because others want your job and you have nothing in place to lay the rules down FOR BOTH PARTIES!
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Wages will continue to go down. $7.25 an hour is too high to compete in the "global economy". Just listen to your local politician. That is WHAT they are saying.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)aggiesal
(8,914 posts)specifically so that companies can pay as little as possible.
Companies are applying this practice in every industry.
I see it in the tech industry with the H1B's.
Flood the market with foreign workers and watch the salaries drop
like a stone in water.
kalli007
(683 posts)which outlines not only the rise of meth, but how big corporations led middle class communities to it. Prior to reading it I had no idea that the 2 were so intertwined, and the reality of AMERICAN corporations screwing their workers for profit. I think if more people read this book they would understand the fallacy of the conservative argument.
enough
(13,259 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,869 posts)I read this book as well. It more or less tells how the demise of the USA can be found entrenched in the world of Methland as they call it. It is what happens to communities that once were. They have no where else to go/turn but to the world of meth and wow does that world ever suck!
I'd recommend this book to everyone out there! It puts the nail in that proverbial coffin so to speak.
Sad but true reality.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)It basically spells out the pattern of...
1) strong union town with single operated union business that is Leveraged bought out by corps like Bain or Cargill
2) cut wages at that same formerly union plant to minimum wage.
3) the few remaining people in town, unable to move to another city for work, now have to put in triple shifts to make what they were making before.
4) exhausted and unable to physically maintain this type of working pace, workers turn to meth for a "little pick me up" to get them through their shifts.
5) Then then plant closes and what is left in it's wake is a town in ruin as there is no main source of work, the union is gone and people are now addicts.
I hope Lori Arnold rots in hell.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)communities whose income base dies are suddenly flooded with drugs. Long history of same.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)And for one of them to actually read anything besides a cereal box is a newsworthy event in itself.
mdbl
(4,973 posts)the American sheeple start to wake up and fight back in their daily actions and their politics. This has been happening in every industry. Look at Boeing, who just threatened to close their plant if the machinists don't take their draconian offers. Does anyone care that companies, with the aid of our government apathy, have become huge bullies? That's all they are now and middle and low class dopes that vote against their very own interests act like it someone else is at fault.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)We may either vote for the interests of the wealthy or for the interests of the wealthy, the upper class, and a few guilt saving crumbs the destitute.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's festering bullshit like that which has allowed our enemies to remain in power, and direct economic policy for the last 30 yrs.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I agree.
Progressive dog
(6,902 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Distortion, mis-characterization, Ad Hominems, and Strawmen are all they have.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Meaning Gore wasn't a better option than Bush; that Obama wasn't a better option than McCain or Romney. That Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alan Grayson & Mayor Bill de Blasio aren't all better options than any Republican they'd be up against.
You're the best kind of "liberal" the GOP could hope for.
Response to baldguy (Reply #68)
neffernin This message was self-deleted by its author.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Who wouldn't if everyone followed your advice, since all of the Democrats who voted for the ACA get paid by the same lobbyists as the GOP. Right?
But then, the GOP doesn't seem to have an alternative to the ACA, do they? So the false argument that "all politicians are the same" falls flat on it's face, doesn't it?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. And the defeatism you advocate plays right into evils hands.
Response to baldguy (Reply #72)
neffernin This message was self-deleted by its author.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Trouble is, too many of the supposed "liberals" on DU would be happy to toss the entire Democratic Party under the bus, and join the GOP to repeal it in hopes that the pipe dream of single payer could replace it. They don't seem to understand (or don't care) the the GOP doesn't want to replace it!
The realists among us know that we got just what we could get with the ACA. Our job now and in the coming years is to work to make it better. We can't do that with people we go around saying there's no difference between the two parties.
Response to baldguy (Reply #110)
neffernin This message was self-deleted by its author.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)I think your comments should be directed elsewhere.
Response to baldguy (Reply #68)
Post removed
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And, yes. That's exactly what the posters above are saying.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Related and often followed by, "here's my argument against what I wish you said".
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)fully capable of reading the body as the subject and don't want to have a debate on my complete statement, preferring to argue what you want to present as my complete thought even if it is patently absurd to do so when the full text is right there.
I said exactly what I see as the difference and will add that I vote the latter but that doesn't at all mean that workers have the option to vote their interests.
Fruit Loops and grapefruit don't have to be the same for neither to be steak. Feel free to argue that grapefruit is much closer to steak than Fruit Loops. Hell, feel free to explain that what I see to be a grapefruit is actually chicken but remember chicken isn't steak either.
No wonder the Turd Way takes such a fancy to chained cpi, substituting comes so easy to them they can't tell buttermilk from champagne.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The pernicious idea that both parties are the same is a notorious RW talking point designed to bleed support from the Democratic Party. You keep pushing it, then you're only helping the Republicans.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)to vote their interests.
Pork chops and hamburger don't have to be the same for me to recognize that neither is a vegetable.
Moby Dick and Dune don't have to be the same for me to say neither is a rock album.
What is faulty is your logic, your comprehension, your honesty circuits, or some combination. Your are arguing something that was never stated at all, I don't give a fuck if you have elected to feel it was implied, you don't get to substitute that feeling for fact to avoid debating what was actually said so that you can get on a pious high horse to avoid honest debate.
If you feel Democrats are serving workers well then argue that but the logic that if Democrats don't serve workers interests then they are policy identical to TeaPubliKlans is fucking weak.
Rahm Emanuel doesn't have to be a carbon copy of Rick Snyder to be a poor steward of the needs of workers, they can have a laundry list of important differences and still both suck in a particular area, even if one is measurably better than the other there.
Do you even know what the word same even means? You are aware that it is possible to even be equally bad (or good or anywhere in between) in the aggregate but arrive at the level in different ways. I don't see Sherrod Brown as the same as Tom Harkin but that doesn't mean I have to think Harkin sucks because I like Brown considerably more.
I don't think Dick Cheney is the same as Louie Gohmert but I wouldn't piss on either should come across them on fire but I can quickly and decisively differentiate them at desperate need.
Your argument is with logic and that reality isn't some light switch. It is silly and absurdly simplistic. It is also obviously dishonest because most folks are not so intellectually limited to really not get it unless the really don't want to.
You want a party accountable only to the worst depths of the insane and wicked opposition, I believe that to be a betrayal of democracy, a disservice to our party and all who have invested in it, a death spiral for broad prosperity and the advancement of individual freedom, and a hell of a dent in the future of life on this world and that of humanity.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And you're saying - again, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - that they are all the same. You're eroding support for the very issues & positions you're claiming to care about. The RW just LOVES that shit. You're doing their work for them!
Response to baldguy (Reply #103)
Post removed
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)The Republicans who get voted in are also there to contrast them many democrats who have compromised everything away. It's no accident those compromising democrats are there, in those offices, it was bought and paid for partially(and sometimes largely) by the well to do. With that alternative in place, those at the table will take what they can get, you get what is left. They say the road to hell is lined with those with good intentions. A guy like Bill Clinton is the standard bearer, the guy who triangulated NAFTA and the end of Glass-Steagall. Good luck with all of that, and getting vote your best interests
Elizabeth Warren: Thats the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall
Posted by Ezra Klein at 03:19 PM ET, 05/14/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/elizabeth-warren-thats-the-strongest-argument-for-a-modern-glass-steagall/2012/05/14/gIQAfxTLPU_blog.html
Whether the faithful want to believe it or not.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Americans will tolerate a great deal, we are a long-suffering people who are accustomed to getting a raw deal. However, there is a limit to what we will accept at the hands of the rich and powerful. They would be wise to agree to this minimum wage increase, for if the wealthy continue to block such efforts to help our most needy fellow citizens, they will face an explosion!
whathehell
(29,067 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)However, over the next 30 yearsan era highlighted by the filibuster of labor law reform in 1978, the Reagan administrations crushing of the PATCO strike, and the passage of anti-worker trade deals with Mexico and Chinalabors bargaining power collapsed. The consequences are driven home by the figure below, which juxtaposes the historical trajectory of union density and the income share claimed by the richest 10 percent of Americans. Union membership has fallen and income inequality has worsenedreaching levels not seen since the 1920s.
http://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-rises/
pampango
(24,692 posts)Immigrants don't break unions. Rich republicans do.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)Your point about illegal immigration is well taken. It was not addressed by republicans in 1921/1924 nor by Democrats in 1965.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)immigration.
THIS is what you defend:
For the first time, Human Rights Watch has issued a report that harshly criticizes a single industry in the United States, concluding that the nation's meat packing industry has such bad working conditions that it violates basic human and worker rights.
In a report issued today, Human Rights Watch, often echoing Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," found that jobs in many beef, pork and poultry plants were so dangerous that the industry violated international agreements promising a safe workplace.
<snip>
The report also concluded that packing companies violated human and labor rights by suppressing their employees' efforts to organize by, for example, often firing employees who support a union. The report asserted that slaughterhouse and packing plants also flouted international rules by taking advantage of workers' immigration status - in some plants two-thirds of the workers are illegal immigrants - to subject them to inferior treatment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/business/25cnd-meat.html?_r=2&
pampango
(24,692 posts)In fact, I posted that your statement that illegal immigration helped destroy meat packing unions was 'well taken'. Do you read this as 'defending' it?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)immigration in the early 1920's. That is not misdirection or misrepresentation. It is a fact. Democrats liberalized legal immigration in 1965, That is also a fact.
Neither the republicans in the 1920's nor the Democrats in the 1960's addressed illegal immigration, yet you counter with "the meatpacking unions were destroyed with illegal immigration" and accuse me of misdirection and misrepresentation.
How does posting the facts about republican and Democratic policies on legal immigration during the period addressed in the OP serve as a defense of illegal immigration (which I agreed was bad for meat packing unions)? If the Democratic Party's historical (and current) positive policy towards immigration makes you uncomfortable, so be it. The republican party has historically been much more negative about immigration, as witnessed most recently by its successful effort to kill immigration reform.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)false statements on this board.
I can tell you are off your footing when you begin with your sleazy insinuations.
pampango
(24,692 posts)If my point that Democrats are more liberal on immigration policy and republicans are more conservative on it are just "sleazy insinuations" rather than historical realities, I stand corrected.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Pointing out that Third Way Democrats have acted in ways that betray the Party's commitment to working people doesn't prove anything anymore.
That's the part that gives you so much trouble, pampango.
pampango
(24,692 posts)against it. And Democrats would not favor it; they would oppose it.
Tea party types, who effectively control the House, have effectively prevented the passage of immigration reform and support a Super-Wall on the Mexican border along with the bogus romney policy of "self-deportation". Their anti-immigrant nativism should not be confused with their being pro-working class.
And I appreciate you going easy on posting any of my "demonstrably false statements".
Romulox
(25,960 posts)break unions. You are, of course, wrong.
So you want to change the subject to legal versus illegal immigration, which is not relevant to the issue of the destruction of the meatpacking industry.
In fact, according to Human Rights Watch, it is the unregulated nature of migration that makes these workers so vulnerable to exploitation. This is the crucial point.
Oh, you know damn well that you deal in slippery, slimy insinuations. "Oh, so you refute my point? You must agree with the KKK then!" The true irony is that you are the one here to disseminate pro-business talking points of the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation in the guise of some sort of faux, half-formed "compassion" for poor workers. Those same workers who are then mistreated, as described, by multinational corporations. Somehow your compassion seems to extend only so far as the slaughterhouse door. What happens beyond is a mystery, to you.
You don't engage in a direct dialogue, because your over-arching point of view (some sort of utopic corporate-anarachy???) is so repellant. So don't demand line by line refutations to your "oh? You know who else talked about workers? Hitler!" style of sliming. It doesn't deserve it.
That doesn't mean your anti-worker garbage gets to go unchallenged.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Because you say so? Every country with strong unions has more immigration than the US. Germany, Sweden, Canada, you name it. Immigration is not breaking their unions, so there is not rule that "immigration breaks unions".
No, you did. I was posting about the changes in immigration laws with respect to legal immigration under republicans and Democrats. You posted: "The meatpacking unions were destroyed with illegal immigration." and "Now do the part about the total loss of a unionized industry (meatpacking) due to illegal immigration.."
You quoted a portion of a study from Human Rights Watch which concluded:
The report asserted that slaughterhouse and packing plants also flouted international rules by taking advantage of workers' immigration status - in some plants two-thirds of the workers are illegal immigrants - to subject them to inferior treatment.
The Human Rights Watch report did not conclude (at least not in the part you quoted) that legal immigration was to blame: "it is the unregulated nature of migration that makes these workers so vulnerable to exploitation." If HRW was being consistent, the "unregulated nature of migration" referred to illegal immigration (by definition - 'unregulated') which they concluded was part of the reason for the demise of unions in the slaughter house industry. If they meant to say that legal immigration is unregulated and also to blame, they would have said so. Legal immigration is, in fact, very tightly regulated. I suspect they know that.
Wait. So now it is not "demonstrably false statements" but rather "slippery, slimy insinuations" such as "Democrats are more liberal on immigration policy and republicans are more conservative on it ..." and "Legal immigration does not destroy the working class. If it did, republicans would be for it - not against it." Are you denying partisan liberal/conservative split on immigration policy or the proven fact that republicans pursue policies that promote the destruction of the working class? Since when do republicans promote pro-working class policies?
I do appreciate you "not wallowing in the mud" with me and my tendency to make ""demonstrably false statements" and "slippery, slimy insinuations". No mention of right wing organizations; just a statement of 'facts' as determined by Romulux. "You said immigration doesn't break unions. You are, of course, wrong." Excuse me if some of us do not adhere to your self-determined 'facts'. We are in good company since progressive countries do not believe them either.
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)is incorrect.
Have you ever heard of H1B visas? And yes Republicans are all
for it. They continue to push to increase the number of legal immigrants
allowed to enter the country to fill high tech jobs, that they are now
driving really good high paying tech salaries down to early 1990 levels.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Congresses started increasing legal immigration circa 1960s-1970s.
Legal immigration, when it creates a big supply of workers with lower expectations than the prevailing workforce, reduces the bargaining power of labor. It's no different from "illegal immigration" except in that being "illegal" makes your expectations even lower.
Immigration is one front on which capital has attempted to drive down wages since the 60s, & it's no accident that the percent of immigrants in the population now approach those that prevailed in the notably anti-labor, pro-capital "Gilded Age".
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)to the burden falling upon born-in-America Americans by our "leaders" and their crocodile tears for the newly arrived immigrants.
Regardless of what we are told by those "leaders," it is really all about cutting costs for corporations. If the rampant open border policy results in the destruction of the middle class, so be it. Why would Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid care? I bet Nancy rarely even has face-to-face encounters with any middle class people.
The rich talk to each other, and to their servants. And then we in the middle class wonder why our reality is so warped.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Equally directed at the way that the traditional blue collar middle class person has been treated, and not just outrage for the tech and IT worker whose jobs are threatened by the H1B visa workers.
For some reason, a person is considered a racist slime ball if they have been kicked to the curb by the large employers who use workers from south of the border, and they end up complaning about it. But a person is not a racist if they don't care to be kicked to the curb by their employers who use people from India. I guess by having a degree in software or computer architecture, these folks are above such terms as "racist." While the blue collar person is just a sad and sorry, racist POS.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Being concerned about loss of jobs isn't racist. Insinuating that everything was fine until them furriners came along, though, arguably is.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Your style of attack is getting rather old.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)all labor woes on "the illegals."
whathehell
(29,067 posts)there were quotas on immigration.
pampango
(24,692 posts)immigrant-rich history.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)think we've had any for the past decade or so, have we?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)The issues are important. Absolutely. But all of us are free to click on or ignore a thread.If there is any ill tempered warring going on at DU. it directly involves only a tiny percentage of DU members. Strong views and feelings are appropriate to the issue and to a political discussion board, but we all have the power to instantly chill by moving to alternate threads
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)they are paid according to who has more leverage, the industry owners or the poor worker who desperately needs his/her income to try and keep a roof over their heads. Obviously the industry dominates these peoples lives and do everything they can to maintain that control. Many of them even go to the extreme of constantly changing work schedules in order to keep employees from getting a second job.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)brewens
(13,583 posts)they are some kind of working class heroes and make 50k a year or more because they produce goods and that's just the way it's always been. Many of them do work up to jobs that are fairly skilled but no really skills they can take anywhere else. They all started out at jobs anyone could do though. A lot of them have no idea that those would still be slave labor type jobs if not for the labor movemant.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)with Mexico, those jobs will never be unionized again.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)IBP would hire buses to sit empty on the U.S. side of the border, then drive north when full.
IBP deliberately hired illegal immigrants to kill unionized jobs, and no one except the people involved gave a crap.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)racism? I certainly hope you guys aren't suggesting something like the Arizona approach, i.e. hassling anybody who "looks Mexican."
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Park a bus in Mexico until it fills up with doctors and dentists and then drive it north. Bring professional incomes down in the same way working class incomes were diminished.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)People would not do the things they do to get into this country - e.g. risking death from thirst or heat stroke in the desert - if they were not truly desperate. And blaming immigrants alone for declining wages seems way too facile - I would think the weakening of unions, and the general knee-jerk anti-labor stupidity in this country - not to mention NAFTA - are more to blame. But of course it's always easy to scapegoat the poorest of the poor...
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I always get my dentistry done in the Philippines. Great service and a fraction of the price.
Want to reduce health care costs? Import doctors and dentists, and watch professional incomes go down. Simple supply and demand.
The way I see it, if the working class have to wear it, the professional class can too.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)crash of 2008. Yet wages almost across the board have continued to stagnate. Supply and demand is a factor, sure, but it's not the only one involved - that kind of simplistic thinking strikes me as a bit "libertarian" (not in a good way).
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)You wouldnt have expected wages to increase during this period anyway. Certainly immigration has not been the only factor keeping down wages, but it is probably the main reason why minimum wages remain so low in the US compared with other first-world economies.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Those who can be persuaded to return to Mexico probably already have returned, due to bad economic times in this country. The rest have been here for years or decades, started families, etc. So the only sensible, humane thing to do would be to offer these folks a path to citizenship, which would also deprive corporations of dirt-cheap, under-the-table labor and hopefully - in concert with pro-labor, pro-union policies (I can dream) - raise wages as a whole.
Really, the only fundamental difference I see between an American-born worker, and an undocumented Mexican worker, is that the latter is easier to exploit due to their "illegal" status. And since most of the undocumented aren't going anywhere - as I said, they have children, they've built lives here - the best thing to do would be to offer them the rights and protections of being an American citizen, like it or not.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)urban a/o union areas.
"Illegal immigrants destroyed the meatpacking industry" is racist, demagogic BS.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You are totally ignorant of the meatpacker's struggles that started in the late 70's.
It is well documented that illegal labor destroyed those jobs by working as scabs, easily searched on the web.
Your opinion on the matter is not valid.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)legislation, corporate & financial mergers undertaken to produce that result, and purposeful de-unionization. It was purposeful strategy of capital, not of the serendipitous migration of "illegal immigrants". And a union with no bargaining power = a weak, useless union.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xdghw0cKYEgC&pg=PA66&dq=ibp+contract+workers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IGDHUt3GO5DmoASboIGQCQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ibp%20contract%20workers&f=false
The ridiculousity of the claim about "illegal immigrants" can be demonstrated: If an industry has a decent union, starting workers will be paid to the union standard, whether they're native born or not. There's no union with a contract that says "Native born American workers get $20/hr but if you hire foreign workers you can pay them $5/hour."
"Illegals" don't destroy wages, only "illegals" in non-unionized plants or plants with weak unions.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)and we've had 30+ years of this shit and time for change. But change won't come quickly enough for most of the middle aged people that is its effecting the most.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)This can't possibly be true. Let's consult the law dictionary.
Duress has been defined as a "threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition". - Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
You're trying to say that labor negotiations are made between unequal parties, the weaker of which is in a state of duress. And this surely can't be true because it would constitute a market failure. So you must be mistaken.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)I swear it all happened while we were sleeping. Growing up in Hartford, Ct. in the 60's there was one McDonalds outside of the city. Not twenty years later, America had gone corporate with a vengeance. It was "morning in America."
I've not read Methland, but will do so soon. Thanks.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)arguement against reformism as opposed to revolution. Under capitalism you will never get lasting reforms that benefit workers. ANY "reforms" gained under capitalism are always in danger of being taken away.
Regulating capitalism is like riding a hungry tiger. It's VERY difficult to do and you're always in danger of being eaten.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)immediate recallability of delegates where direct democracy isn't possible, no representative makes more than the average wage of a worker in his/her district. Abolish "private property" (not personal property), workers own the means of production either directly or through a worker's government.
Those are just some beginning ideas. You can't design a complete socialist system in an internet post.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)with some more explicitly socialist ideas.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)we got to the dual power situation embodied in worker's councils, there would be a sort of "Constitutional Convention" called. Of course this convention would probably try to freeze out the so-called "extreme left", but that would be hard to do IF the councils consisted of the "extreme" left.
I would think that this convention would try to put together a road map for a socialist system for the USA.
Wounded Bear
(58,653 posts)is little more than free publicity for the for-profit education industry. Cant find a decent job? Go to college! You'll still be unemployed, and you'll be mired in debt for the rest of your life, but you'll have a shiny new degree to post on that resume you'll be sending out to thousands of prospective employers. Hey! Maybe you can then be refused a job because you're over-qualified. Won't that make you feel better about starving to death?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Just as they were handing out houses to any and all in the early 2000's, now the Powers that Be have tons of loan monies to give to people who are lured into the "need" for going back to college.
However, very few of these returning students are being told that getting a degree in PR, or communications or journalism might not really allow you any type of income after you graduate. (If you have the right connections, then such a degree might help, but if a person has those top notch connections, I assume that they would not be out of work today.)
And of course, that income is super important, because after you leave Phoenix "University" or NHU, or whatever other newbie online "place of learning" you have gone into debt to pay tuition costs of upwards of $ 18,000 a year, you will have major amounts of debt to pay back.
The situation is different for people going into the health field. But soon that market might be overwhelmed by all the people who have realized it is really about the only four year degree worth having.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)were most people able to make $18 in 1992?
I highly doubt it.
I graduated with my MA in 1990 and took a part-time teaching job - $810 a month. I could have worked full time if I wanted to commute between two towns 50 miles apart, but I didn't want to, and didn't even own a car.
Even if I had $16,200 a year is a far cry from $36,000 a year.
In Feb. 1993, I took a job at a satellite dish factory. Started at $4.50 an hour, after 60 days got a raise to $5.10 an hour.
There were 200 people working at that factory. Of course, the wage was piece rate, so some of the welders and faster workers made $9 or $10 an hour.
Still a far cry from $18.
Of course, turnover was very high at that factory. In January 1995 they gave jackets to all the workers who had been there over two years. They only gave away about 30 jackets. I started working part-time there in January 1995. Actually I gave notice and asked if I could stay on part time, and they let me because they needed the production.
Then the market died for the big satellite dishes and they laid half the factory off in March 1995.
Point is, $18 an hour in 1992 was NOT the "middle class", it was the UPPER middle class. And there still is an upper middle class, it is just that some people fell out of it in the 1990s.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)of this one guy who used to make $18 until 1992.
How about this non-anecdotal evidence? In 1993, 60% of households made less than $38,200 and 80% of them made less than $59,400.
In 1992, 80% made less than $56,820.
So, take his $18 an hour, give him 5 hours of over-time per month and his annual income was $39,060. All he needs is a spouse making $8.5 an hour to put him in the upper middle class.
$18 an hour simply was NOT that common even in the good old days of 1990.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..doesn't mean EVERYBODY will be that lucky.
Steve Jobs dropped out of college, built a computer in his garage,
and now has BILLIONS of Dollars.
Why didn't YOU do that?
YOU could be a BILLIONAIRE too!
Why not?
Steve Jobs did it!!!!
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)to work a $5 an hour job?
yeah, I've got the luck of the Irish - all bad.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)moondust
(19,981 posts)H-1B Visas: These are earmarked for skilled temporary workers like architects, computer programmers, designers and others.
H-1A Visas: These are set aside for farm laborers and other seasonal employees.
H-2B Visas: These are set aside for non-agricultural workers who typically enter and exit the country within the same year.
H-3 Visas: These are intended for short-term training stints during which the visa holder must earn a salary or stipend.
H-4 Visas: These can be obtained by certain relatives and dependents of qualifying H-visa holders.
http://gutierrezfirm.com/immigration/non-immigrant-work-visa/h-visas/
I don't know the legal status of the immigrant workers in meatpacking but I did see a late night TV show a few days ago on CNN where Morgan Spurlock spent a day picking oranges with immigrant workers on H-1A visas in Florida. Heavy physical work lugging around large bags full of oranges. He was paid a fixed rate for every large tub of oranges he managed to fill. I don't know if he worked the full day but he figured his pay for filling three large tubs that day worked out to be about $4.50 an hour. His pay turned out better than that because the company had to make up the difference to comply with minimum wage. Of course after a day doing that heavy work he was probably tired and sore for a week.
Americans used to do those meatpacking jobs for good wages. For many it was a sacrifice: you spend long hours doing nasty work sawing up animal carcasses in a bloody, smelly, cold environment--for good pay--so that you could have some nice things and your children could go to college and not have to do that kind of nasty work.
Maybe if those visas weren't so readily available those companies would have to pay better wages and Americans would be more willing to make the sacrifice to get ahead and create opportunities for their children.
dchill
(38,489 posts)When will Sam Walton's kids be paid according to their skills? Or Mitt Romney's?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The American Working Class has not been represented either Political Party in our duopoly since LBJ.
The current Democratic Party Leadership pays Lip Service to the Working Class,
and is surviving more on unearned Brand Loyalty than by any REAL advocacy for Americans who Work for a Living.
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)As soon as you can cite a post on DU where somebody says that "All politicians are the same",
I will remove the Goat Label from your post.
Until then,
you are just making stuff up,
and fighting with your own fantasies.
I must confess to a weakness.
My mother taught me that I should avert my eyes when someone makes an embarrassing spectacle of themselves,
but I can't help myself.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)You're not getting paid by Karl Rove or the Koch Bros. Why are you doing their work for them?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Here is the Jury's decision:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS:
This is an unsubstantiated Personal Attack accusing a long term member of DU of being paid operative of Karl Rove & the Republicans.
This "over the top" behavior is divisive and detrimental to the DU community.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:58 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While I empathize and understand the alerter, I don't think this post should be hidden. I see it as an opportunity to elaborate on the topic. Please forgive this juror if you disagree.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm really sick and tired of people accusing good democrats or others on the left of posting "RW talking points" whenever someone disagrees with the perpetually self-righteous. It really gets old.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: BS alert which misrepresents what the poster said. Note: he said "You're *not* getting paid by Karl Rove or the Koch Bros. Why are you doing their work for them?" The person he is responding to called him out. Constantly posting RW talking points is more divisive and detrimental to the DU community than imagined slights.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Violates rules
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No it quite literally is not. The post says:
"You're not getting paid by Karl Rove or the Koch Bros."
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post that this was responding to (and whom the alerter called a highly-valued member) was actually the offensive one - and I will be alerting on it myself
Thank you.
The Community at DU means a lot to me,
and there are some things I will never quietly tolerate.
The most offensive behavior is members simply Making Things Up,
and using their unsupported fabrications to attack other members of DU.
I take it seriously.
You should take it seriously.
DU should take it seriously.
--bvar22
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Defend Pres Obama & the Democratic Party from attacks by self-righteous but misguided progressives using stale RW talking points; get accused of being a RWer. In my experience people tend to hit the alert button when they're losing the argument.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Look at banking. You could watch millions a day in transactions go through making the bank 10s of thousands and they'll pay you minimum wage to do that.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)NAFTA was a huge boon to their efforts in transferring wealth from the middle class to their benefactors at the top of the income chain. Keep voting for them and they WILL succeed in raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)It was company policy.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Wow, I'm sorry to hear that. Sounds like something out of a dark television series like Breaking Bad.
Those bosses should be in jail. Sounds like they were working with the drug dealers--and probably making a cut off of getting people hooked.
I hope you are doing well today.
openfield
(30 posts)Believe in neoliberalism, the Chicago and Virginia schools of economics. Neoliberlalism dates back to about 1947, reaching a climax with reagan, then all the people after him Dem and repug. Neoliberalism kills middle classes all over the world, here, there, and everywhere. It is what creates income inequality and our 99/1 percent dilemma. I hate to spread bad news without solutions, so I always add a solution. Mine is to replace this economic thinking with our own, the kind individualists hate, but fuck them. This world will not tolerate them any longer.