SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (361)10/17/2005 10:59:03 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 492
 
re: Whatever else you might have to say about Henry Ford, he did realize that if he paid his workers more they would be able to afford the cars he was building. That sort of self interest seems to be foreign to many CEOs. When they reach their goal of everyone being at the lowest wage structure, who can afford to buy their products?

Good points. One thing I see happening wrt call centers is domestic workers working from home on the VPN, this is getting very big. The corporation can save money on physical plant, heating and air conditioning, liability insurance, paper, all sorts of costs. The employee saves money on transportation and clothing, buying lunch, travel time, etc. It's a win/win and from what I understand can be cheaper than outsourcing call centers to India.

I'm convinced that if we can lower legal and illegal immigration at the low end, we can create higher wages at the low end of the pay scale. And that will work it's way up... if unskilled workers are earning $13 per hour it puts pressure on wages of semi-skilled workers, and if semi skilled workers get $18 per hour then skilled workers... on up the scale. We need a better balance of supply and demand in the labor force. I'm sure that's why Bush isn't fighting illegal immigration; it hurts his corporate buddies.

But I, like you, am leaning more protectionist. But I think it's a short term fix to a long term problem.

John



To: combjelly who wrote (361)10/18/2005 1:40:20 PM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 492
 
U.S. Labor Is in Retreat as Global Forces Squeeze Pay and Benefits By David Streitfeld Times Staff Writer
Tue Oct 18, 7:55 AM ET


Workers at auto parts maker Delphi Corp. will be asked this week to take a two-thirds pay cut. It's one of the most drastic wage concessions ever sought from unionized employees.

Workers at General Motors Corp., meanwhile, tentatively agreed on Monday to absorb billions of dollars in healthcare costs. Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler employees are certain to face similar demands.

The forces affecting Delphi and GM workers are extreme versions of what's occurring across the American labor market, where such economic risks as unemployment and health costs once broadly shared by business and government are being shifted directly onto the backs of American working families.

Four years into an economic recovery, workers across America should be riding high. Instead, they're facing new demands to surrender hard-won benefits and agree to wage concessions. Companies say these cutbacks are essential to stay competitive in an increasingly globalized economy.

In recent weeks, there have been numerous examples — and they aren't limited to manufacturers.

Grocery workers at the 71-store Farmer Jack chain in Michigan agreed to take a 10% wage cut to make their operation more palatable to a new owner. Hundreds of workers at a hose plant in Auburn, Ind., approved a $2 cut in their $18-an-hour pay to keep the plant open. Police officers in Wyandotte, Mich., agreed to a three-year wage freeze and to pay more for healthcare.

Jerry Jasinowski, president of the Manufacturing Institute at the National Assn. of Manufacturers, said such givebacks would simply become a fact of life.

"From airline pilots to auto assembly workers, employees need to help reduce their costs," he said. "We can't afford to live with the very generous benefits we provided 10, 15 years ago."

Workers' reduced leverage has many origins, including a slack labor market and the offshoring of jobs to low-cost countries such as China and India.

Some companies, challenged by low-cost rivals, say they can't afford more than minimal raises. And even at firms doing well, high premiums for healthcare insurance take away from the pool of funds that could be used to provide raises.

Only 60% of businesses offer health insurance to their workers, down from 66% in 2003 and 69% in 2000, according to a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

Companies also are asking workers to produce more for the same pay.

The result is that the cost of living has been outpacing wage increases for most workers all year. Driven by high energy costs, inflation rose twice as fast as wages in September, the government reported last week. The liberal Economic Policy Institute called it "the largest decline in real earnings in decades."

Wages that stand still or decline help to damp inflation. But that's small consolation for anyone contemplating a lighter wallet.

As old-line industries such as auto parts and airlines struggle to adapt to harsh circumstances, their workers are particularly vulnerable.

When the mechanics at Northwest Airlines Corp. went on strike nearly two months ago in an effort to forestall a 26% pay cut, the company promptly filled their jobs. The workers have an offer from the company that features the same pay cut and worse job security than the deal they rejected before the strike.

Prospects for the rank-and-file at Delphi, which filed for bankruptcy protection Oct. 8, are just as grim. Labor historians say they can't remember a moment during an economic recovery when so many at one company were asked to give back so much all at once.

The proposed givebacks are "extraordinary sacrifices," especially in light of Delphi's "disgusting" decision to sweeten retention packages for executives, United Auto Workers union officials said in statements.

Critics say that Delphi employees, who earn an average of $27 an hour in addition to generous medical and retirement benefits, make too much to allow the company to compete. By contrast, workers at Delphi's profitable China operations earn about $3 an hour.

"Companies cannot provide gold-plated healthcare benefits and open-ended pension commitments," said economist Peter Morici, a trade negotiator in the Clinton administration. The UAW, he said, "should have educated" its members long ago "and been realistic" in its demands.

The new Delphi contract will set a precedent for labor negotiations at GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler. Ford also said Monday that it was in talks with its union about possible health benefit cuts.

The auto industry has been a weather vane for wage trends almost since it began. Henry Ford's 1914 announcement of the Five Dollar Day, doubling at once the pay packages of his 15,000 assembly line workers, inaugurated what the Detroit Free Press called a "new industrial era."

Then, factory workers were leading the way. Now they're seen as doomed.

"There's a widespread view that the old-line industries are just going to go away," said Steve Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research. "In the global economy, we're all supposed to become service employees. And Delphi is as old-line as one could get."

Based in Troy, Mich., the company — spun off by General Motors in 1999 — is less of a dinosaur than it may appear. More than two-thirds of its 185,000 employees already work outside the United States. It's been closing and modernizing its U.S. plants. Its one California plant, in Anaheim, shut this year.

"As a world-class employer," the company proclaims on its website, "Delphi offers its full-time employees world-class benefits." In recent days, that proud statement has acquired another meaning: Delphi workers in the United States, management says, must earn something closer to what the rest of the world gets.

Vacations reportedly will be slashed from six weeks to four weeks. Healthcare premiums will be higher. The company's pension contributions will be lower. Paid holidays will shrink from 17 a year to as few as 10. And wages will fall sharply, to as low as $10 or $12 an hour. Those levels would make it unlikely that Delphi workers would be able to afford the cars they're helping to build.

Robert S. Miller, the restructuring specialist brought in this summer to run the company, said he didn't blame the workers for their unhappy predicament. He described the process as akin to a storm. "Globalization has swept over them," he said at a news conference.

It's a storm that has ravaged other American industries. "This is death by a thousand lashes, so it passes under the political radar," said economist Thomas Palley, a former assistant director of public policy at the AFL-CIO.

"It hit the apparel producers, then furniture, then textiles, then steel," Palley said. "It's moving up the value chain. I've gotten article proofs that were done in the Philippines. Radiologists in India now read charts for American hospitals. It's hit basic architectural work."

Globalization has many admirers and undeniable benefits. Every auto parts plant that Delphi sets up overseas improves the local standard of living. And in the U.S., globalization works to keep prices low, as domestic firms and importers compete to deliver the cheapest goods.

Some economists see little to worry about. The U.S. unemployment rate, at 5.1%, "is evidence that our economy's ability to provide jobs on a sustained basis has not been impaired" by international competition, Federal Reserve Gov. Donald Kohn said in a recent speech.

Others aren't so sanguine. "How do U.S. firms compete in the global economy?" asked UC Berkeley economist Harley Shaiken. "If the only way to compete is with $10 wages, we have a problem that is much larger than just Delphi. We're looking at a society where people exit rather than enter the middle class."

Last year's presidential election prompted a debate over globalization and the offshoring of jobs that yielded a lot of heat but little light. Some said the phenomenon was overblown in an economy that creates and destroys millions of jobs a year.

Others contended that it would swell over time and soon affect millions.

"Maybe we were looking under the wrong rock," said Jared Bernstein, an Economic Policy Institute economist.

A few hundred thousand jobs may have been lost directly to cheaper jobs overseas, he said. But what's under-recognized is how millions of others might have kept their jobs — or at least, a job — but lost current or future benefits.

The labor historians offering the bleakest outlook say they don't know what will arrest this downward process.

"There used to be a kind of floor for worker welfare," said Leon Fink, editor of the journal Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas. "But we're now living in an age in which all those old standards have come unglued."



To: combjelly who wrote (361)10/22/2005 8:02:40 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 492
 
Does this sound vaguely familiar (from the New Yorker)

GAME PLAN
by George Packer
George Packer on what the Republicans’ troubles mean for the opposition.
Issue of 2005-10-24
Posted 2005-10-17



Nine months ago, Inauguration Day in Washington had all the trappings of a coronation. Karl Rove, the President’s blandly smiling Richelieu, told gatherings of partisans that George W. Bush’s three-per-cent margin of victory was a mandate for the consolidation of Republican power; at bars throughout the capital, young conservatives raised toasts to years of political domination. With its majority in both Houses of Congress expanded by yet another crop of radical freshmen, the ruling party appeared poised to achieve the last remaining items on its agenda and consign the opposition to oblivion. It was hard to believe that the Democrats would ever win another election.

The Republican implosion has come with startling speed. In the normally disciplined ranks of Republican opinion-makers, Harriet Miers is reviled as a mediocrity and a squandered chance to move the Supreme Court firmly to the right for the next few decades; those Inauguration Night revellers are now tearing her and one another apart on right-wing Web sites. The conservatives’ other grand objectives, in economic and foreign policy, have also failed this year: the President’s attempt to privatize Social Security went nowhere, and the “Bush doctrine” has been so damaged in Iraq that even the American Enterprise Institute, where the idea of invading Iraq was incubated, just held a funereal conference on the war.

These policy failures coincide with a rash of legal trouble: the congressional enforcer Tom DeLay has been indicted for political money-laundering; a White House procurement official has been arrested in connection with the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal; and, as the grand-jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak nears its end, America awaits the fate of Karl Rove. All of this, together with the cronyism and incompetence exposed by the Administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, has destroyed the image of a ruthlessly unified party led by a President who always wins.

It was an image that inspired fear in the opposition and in Republicans who were tempted to stray. But uncontested power hollowed out the Bush White House and the Republican Party: ideology became cant, and political triumphs supplanted real achievements. The unravelling has been all the more dramatic considering the Republicans’ total control of Washington. Since August, Bush’s political standing has collapsed faster than Lyndon Johnson’s in 1965, when the Democrats ruled the capital and the Watts riots and the escalation in Vietnam set off the decline of modern liberalism. The following year, Republicans made large gains in the midterm congressional elections, Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California, and the conservative movement began its ascent.

Part of the movement’s success came from its ability to pursue common goals in spite of divisions—between pro-business libertarians and social conservatives, tax cutters and deficit hawks, intellectuals and evangelicals, millionaires and the white working class. But Bush’s philosophy of corporate conservatism—more Harding than Reagan; not anti-government, just anti-good-government, with a tone of authoritarian piety and legislation written by lobbyists—has shown that Republican unity was always based less on intellectual coherence than on a willingness to keep one’s mouth shut.

Yet the Republicans did once present the country with a strong collective vision, most notably in 1994, when they came to power swearing to enact a document called the Contract with America. Few remember anymore what those Republicans signed: vows to reform Congress, along with commitments to fiscal responsibility and personal accountability. Noble goals! By the standards of the DeLay Congress, the Gingrich revolutionaries were idealistic and rational.

But the soiled and forgotten contract suggests a way for the Democrats to seize their own rare chance in the 2006 elections. The Party will not return to power by waiting for indictments or by fine-tuning tired slogans. Nor will it be useful to copy the Republican right’s strategy of pandering to its constituency: the conservative base is larger than that of the liberals, as we learned in last year’s Presidential election. The old debate over moving to the extreme or to the center, which resurfaces after every defeat, presents a false choice and is itself a sign of a political vegetative state. The sure way for the Democrats to go on losing is to frame a message designed to win back married Catholic women while mobilizing twenty-something iPod users.

Instead of trying to cobble together a hypothetical majority with a hodgepodge of small-bore policy proposals, the Democrats need to nationalize the elections of 2006 the way the Republicans did in 1994. A Democratic manifesto that unites the Party’s own diverse factions would begin as a referendum on the ruling party: the White House and Congress have handed government over to corrupt interests, and, in so doing, the Republicans have betrayed basic American principles of honesty, competence, and fairness. There is no reason for Democrats to be on the defensive about moral values. On issue after issue, government by cronyism and corruption has sacrificed the interests of the middle class to those of the Administration’s wealthy friends. The deepening inequality in American life threatens families and democracy, and it is neither natural nor inevitable.

As a new book, “Off Center,” by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, points out, Republicans never won the war of ideas—Americans remain almost implacably centrist—but they created a powerful political machine that is tactically shrewder and far richer than that of the Democrats. To overcome these structural disadvantages, the Democrats’ campaign approach needs to be broad and bold. Energy: The Republicans have made America more dependent on foreign oil while gas prices are skyrocketing; the Democrats will push for energy independence. Health care: The Republicans have allowed private companies to eliminate choice while costs go up and millions of Americans lack insurance; the Democrats will enact national coverage that restores choice and holds down costs. Taxes: The Republicans have shifted the burden from the top to the middle; the Democrats will reverse that trend, and will end the Administration’s ruinous fiscal policies. National security: Republican incompetence has squandered our power abroad and failed to make us more secure at home, as the country learned after Katrina; the Democrats will rebuild the armed forces—making it at least possible for the Iraq insurgency to be defeated—and bring competence to homeland security.

Above all, the Democratic Party needs to overcome its own self-esteem problem. Its leaders have to show imagination and take risks, to be confident and aggressive, to proceed as if the current occupant of the White House no longer mattered—as if the Democrats fully intended to win and govern. The Democratic Party has to speak for the common good in a moral language; and it has to believe what it says, so that when the opposition’s attacks come, as they will, it can find the heart and the courage to fight back.