WES CLARK ---21st Century opportunities for the Labor and Union movement

[FrenchieCat]

As we all know, the labor movement and the strength of Unions has been, over time, weakened, demonized and demoralized by the rethoric and policies of the GOP.

Wes Clark offers a new tact that Unions can utilize in rejuvenating their institutions by bringing on new objectives and goals; growing their ranks; and coming back to be the force they once were and the force we need them to be to again provide the backbone sorely needed by most American workers.

Clark Podcast--

" I think that unions can become the backbone of labor in America, growing in importance, responsible for providing developmental education, responsible for organizing healthcare, providing emergency assistance, serving as the transition focal point, helping point union members to new job opportunities and new skills. I think to do this opens up new possibilities of teamwork, collaboration with management without giving up the essential responsibilities that unions must have to speak up for the needs of workers, to speak up for fair wages, for full benefits, for all the other elements of workplace safety and performance that are essential to the workers that sometimes management doesn't recognize or a strong union voice to help with. Without giving up any of that, I think unions can do even more and help the economy even more as we move ahead.

Isn't it possible that we could have a union movement in which individual unions work together, share membership, help union members transition from one union to another, one location to another, one job to another, one profession to another, in which unions take pride in the number of their members who have graduated from the union movement and become part of management, in which unions serve as the, as the source for employment information, direct members to training, provide training opportunities and licensing, not only in their own skill-sets, but in skill-sets for jobs yet to be, encourage people to move beyond the boundaries of the skills for that particular union and move elsewhere geographically or skill-wise to keep up with the changing needs of the economy? A union movement that was organized like this would be an important partner to management. It would be vital to management and would be sought after by management.

And so, I think that as we look ahead on this Labor Day, we can find opportunities to reflect on the great achievements that unions have given us in the past. So much of what we appreciate in modern America, not just Labor Day, but so much of what we appreciate is due to the influence and effect of the labor movement - retirement, paid vacations, healthcare benefits, 40-hour work week, weekends - all of that came from the labor movement. We take it for granted today, but looking ahead, there's a new requirement for the labor movement, and that is to work in a new collaborative role with other institutions in the country to help strengthen the productivity, increase the skills, improve the fitness and health, and add to the quality of life of the American worker and the American family. I think the labor movement can do this. It starts with minimum wage and a fight for fair trade, enforcing the spirit of the Davis-Bacon Act and all the other things that labor stands for. But it goes beyond this into building a new labor movement to enhance the prosperity and dignity of America and improve our national strength for decades to come."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/4/162453/8630

Here's the podcast: http://securingamerica.com/

[FrenchieCat]

1. In essence.....The Labor Movement has a major role to play in

the "security" of Americans.

Strong security is not just a foreign policy goal......it definitely should be a domestic one as well.

BTW, Wes Clark will be on C-Span tomorrow with Reid and Pelosi.....Don't know at what time, but I'll watch out of it...for those interested.

[Wesin04]

2. Check the Clark Casts

This message is on podcast, along with other great addresses by Clark. Go to www.securingamerica.com to listen or download to your iPOD.

[Peace Patriot]

3. I do not like this statement at all. The job of unions is to kick

corporate butt, not to be "an important partner to management," and to enhance the obscene profits and salaries of fatcat CEOs, board members, investors and top managers, by facilitating job displacement, outsourcing, downsizing, firings of the older higher benefit workers, sweatshop labor, raiding pension funds, and the movement of industries from state to state and country to country, as these global corporate predators seek the cheapest, most unprotected labor and the most unregulated environments. Unions need to become much more militant toward, and LESS collusive with, the horrors of global piracy and the rightwing corporate and financial class which is inflicting untold suffering and grief with its corporate oil war, and is quite literally, destroying our democracy, our country and our planet.

"Without giving up any of that (non-existent fair wages and full benefits), I think unions can do even more and help the economy even more as we move ahead." --Clark

What economy? These fuckheads--the new robber barons and their lackey managements--have destroyed our economy. And I really dislike the phrase "as we move ahead." The use of tired old rhetoric like this indicates fuzzy thinking and even dishonesty. What else can we do but "move ahead"? The future is in front of us. And, judging from the present, it is to be future in which our sovereignty as a people--our right to vote, and our right to influence government financial, military, labor, environmental, foreign and trade policy--has been replaced by the sovereignty of the giant corporation.

Most of the giant corporations that now control all government policy and lawmaking need to be dismantled, and their assets seized for the common good. Then we'll see jobs. Then we'll see manufacturing and creativity and competition. Then we'll see decent salaries and a decent society. Then we'll see fair trade. Then we'll see innovation to address the huge damage that these corporate rulers have plagued us with--in pollution of air, water and soil, in deforestation, in GMOs and 'frankenfood,' in their pollution of our public airwaves with non-stop consumerism and corporate propaganda, and in their obstruction of the development of alternative energy and non-polluting transportation.

There is no being "partners" with these hugely powerful and evil entities. They have no conscience. They have no loyalty. They have no humanity. And now they live forever, gobbling up more and more land, resources and money, and ever more power.

And Clark shouldn't put the onus of mitigating job displacement on labor unions, when it belongs on the government which should be forcing corporations to PAY FOR IT.

If we had a government any more.

Private corporations with very close ties to the Bush Junta, the Republican Party, and extremist rightwing 'christian' causes are now counting all our votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls, in the new electronic voting systems, engineered by the biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, abetted by particular Democrats--Christopher Dodd prime among them--and by the MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE of the Democratic Party leadership at this outrageous assault on our sovereignty.

Clark should be addressing THAT, instead of lecturing labor unions on how to be more "cooperative" with these fascist global monopolies that view us as slave labor and cannon fodder.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I'd like to reply to your post.....by first stating that the Unions have

NOT been kicking corporate butts for quite sometime....so if this is their only job, it doesn't bode well for the future of unions.

You have chosen to see the suggestion of a possibility of unions facilitating certain issues THAT ARE VERY REAL problems for our workforce as facilitating the problems themselves. I'm not sure how Unions helping workers would make the unions complicit to corporation ...but it appears that is how you choose to interpret Clark's words.

Whether you like it or not, there is not "stand still".....and things are moving ahead.....as they always will.

Clark makes sure to state, in several places, that Unions must continue to do what they have always done......in reference to protecting workers.....demanding higher wages, and ensuring the provision of health benefits.

Government will not be paying workers for Government displacement (apart from paying unemployment) anytime soon....and the bottomline is, until this happens, the unions are the best conduit to helps its members do this.

Clark is looking for solutions; you are looking for blame.....which is already a "known".

Clark is not lecturing anyone anymore than you are.....he is simply suggesting various ways that Unions can become strong again and continue to do what unions were set up to do; protect and assist workers that pay for services to be rendered.

Provision of benefits to members: Early trade unions, like Friendly Societies, often provided a range of benefits to insure members against unemployment, ill health, old age and funeral expenses. In many developed countries, these functions have been assumed by the state, however the provision of professional training, legal advice and representation for members is an important benefit of trade union membership.

Also note that many who work for corporation are not members of unions. Unions must grow their ranks in order to continue to make an impact that could benefit the workforce in general. It is actually the government's job to insure fair minimum wages, and it would be great if the government would look into insuring those who need health insurance. There are more workers who are not members of unions out there.....who need help. Why don't you concentrate on that?

It is fortunate that while you rant that the glass is half empty...there are those who care enough to suggest that the glass could, with some imagination, be made full to the brim again.

You have provided absolutely no solutions in your post in how to make unions grow; how to make unions strong again; nor how to realistically help union members and non union workers alike.

[Peace Patriot]

6. It just really rubbed me wrong. It's so out of focus. You say that

blame is "already a 'known.'" But I have never heard any major Democratic leader place the blame for our loss of jobs, labor rights, labor protections, and decent salaries and benefits where it belongs. And PLACING the blame is the first requirement for successfully addressing the problem.

I am not against unions helping their members. But I am dead set against unions facilitating predatory and monopolistic practices and being a "partner to management." We have seen quite enough of that in both unions and the Democratic Party. You become "partners" with corporations and soon they are dictating all policy for the profit of the few.

And I DO offer a solution. TRANSPARENT elections! Get the corporations the hell out of our election system--with their TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation--and you will see a revolution in this country on workers' rights and on every other matter of importance to the majority. It is ONLY by means of NON-TRANSPARENT elections that these corporate cabalists can continue to control us. Their behavior--and greed, and disloyalty, and inhumanity--has been SO BAD, we should have long ago broken their power. We, the people, are the sovereigns here. WE get to say which corporations may, by our permission, exist, and which corporations get dismantled. WE get to bust up monopolies and curtail global corporate predators that operate from our shores. And WE say what THEY must pay in taxes, salaries, benefits, and health care, and what they can and cannot do to our economy and our environment.

That is the proper order of things. We, the people, rule. And we, the people, are mostly WORKERS!

But they have royally messed with our election system--so that nobody can SEE and understand how they are "counting" our votes--for the express purpose of THWARTING the will of the people.

The Democratic Party--in doing just what Clark here suggests that unions do, becoming a "partner to management"--has lost sight of the BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR DEMOCRACY, and the basic principles and PURPOSE of our political party--to represent workers, the poor and middle classes, minorities, the elderly, the young, small business and progressive professionals---the interests of the MAJORITY--AGAINST the interests of the moneyed class and big business, who have now completely, and totally, and without mitigation, fucked us over so badly that we may never recover. Time and again, under Clinton, and now post-Clinton, our party has SOLD OUT to the interests of global corporate predators, starting way back with NAFTA and GATT and other global piracy agreements, which were made without our consent, in secret, and by which our very sovereignty as a people was sold away to the highest bidders. Now they've sold away our right to vote as well!

Enough! ENOUGH! No more of this "partner" crap! How are you "partners" with Exxon-Mobile? How are you "partners" with Wal-Mart? How are you "partners" with Time-Warner? How are you "partners" with Halliburton? How are you "partners" with these gigantic bloodsucking parasites? They DON'T WANT partners. They WANT SLAVES! They want THROWAWAY WORKERS! They want an IMPOVERISHED, IMPRISONED population of poor youngsters for their oil wars!

What Clark has said here is not just pablum and Labor Day rhetoric. It has a subtext that workers and unions are, somehow, NOT cooperating--that we should give MORE than our hard work and productivity, that we should organize and pay for our own displacement. The costs of outsourcing, and downsizing, and all the crimes of global corporate predation should fall on the global corporate predators, and NOT on unions and their members!

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. The legitimate interests of the Democratic Party...

involve working to make America a safer, more just, more equitable, more prosperous and more responsible society that becomes and remains a positive contributer to humanity on the whole. So, what will that take; greater and more encompassing compassion for all of our fellow Americans, a violent Revolution?

The devil is always in the details, isn't it? I've heard "ENOUGH!" shouted for 40 years now, dating back to my days as a campus radical when I often was one of those shouting it loudest. One thing I've decided is that shouting ENOUGH! isn't good enough. We need a strategy, we need good tactics we need allies, we need realistic openings to skillfully pursue. Not only has powerful rhetoric failed by itself to get the job done(and I've heard some great and inspirational rhetoric in my days), it sometimes even gets in the way, when that rhetoric fails to connect as desired with those who we desire to effect.

Union membership in America is now down to 15%, it was over 50% when I first started voting. Sure some of that is because of ill guided organizing attempts and bought off Union leaders and such, but do you think that there never were ill guided organizing attempts and corrupt Union leaders in the past? Human nature hasn't changed that much in 50 years. Society is evolving and the nature of work and how workforces are structured is evolving also. Much of that has been imposed on workers by greedy management as you say, but that is not the sole cause. If Unions don't find a way to evolve they will increasingly be marginalized. There is no reason to believe that the trend of the last 50 years will not continue if no real changes are made. That would defy basic physics.

Do you remember the Luddites? They fought against the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in centuries past because they could clearly see how individual workers and communities would suffer from it. They were right, but they were also wrong, because they thought they could stop an Industrial Revolution from happening and that was no more possible than stopping the rain. Stopping a specific negative course of the Industrial Revolution may have been possible, but not stopping the Revolution itself.

Clark is opening up an important discussion here about how Unions can change to meet current realities. As with any important discussion in an early stage concepts are broadly drawn and subject to change with additional input. That is why they are called discussions, but this is a critical discussion for the American Union movement to engage in if it hopes to remain a strong player on behalf of the majority of Americans, as you say.

You point to one strategy, protecting our right to vote. You might be interested in these discussions between experts about how our votes are being compromised and potentially stolen through electronic elections. They are excellent and General Clark sponsored their distribution through his weekly podcasts. The ones I am referring to are Clarkcasts 21 and 22 on the Security of our Elections:

http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/22

[Peace Patriot]

13. "Potentially" stolen?

"...how our votes are being compromised and potentially stolen through electronic elections." --tom r.

Here are the beneficiaries of the nearly $4 billion "Help American Vote Act" boondoggle:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; they are run by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich.

These are the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy.

The third major player in the election theft industry, SEQUOIA, employs Republican former Calif Secretary of State Bill Jones, and his chief aide Alfie Charles, to peddle their machines--in an outstanding example of the highly corrupt practice of "revolving door" employment. Jones and Charles brought this election theft technology to Calif--and got the laws passed, for instance, that permit TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote counting; now they work for the industry.

TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code. Virtually no audit/recount controls. Mountains of scientific evidence that these machines are EXTREMELY insecure and insider hackable--and NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN fast-tracked across the nation. And MOUNTAINS of evidence that they have USED this DELIBERATELY set up NON-TRANSPARENT, UNVERIFIABLE election system to keep Bush in the White House and Bushites in control of Congress. Our Democratic leadership placed an "Iron Curtain" over this subject for three years--while the system of SECRET corporate control of election results was entrenched--with only tiny slivers of light RECENTLY leaking out. Why? Because most of them LIKE Bush's war and tax cuts for the super-rich. The Bush Junta pulls everything over to the fascist end of the spectrum--and right off the edge, in many cases--and the Democrats can then look like "centrists," which these days means being "partners" with the toady management of the Corporate Rulers.

NON-TRANSPARENT election are NOT elections. They are tyranny. That's what we have--the tyranny of the Corporate Rulers, and Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia are right up there with Enron and Hallburton, and Rupert Murdock--as the worst of the lot. That's who is "counting" our votes. That's who is choosing our candidates. That's who is (s)electing our leaders. And that's why the United States is headed the way of Mexico, Saipan, Jamaica, Cambodia and all the "Banana Republics": 25 cents a day, up to $3 an hour, depending of the BENEFICENCE of the Corporate Rulers: if you unionize in Mexico, they pull out and go to Cambodia.

Decent workers' rights and benefits cannot, and will not, be maintained if the workers--the MAJORITY--are disenfranchised, and their votes are "tabulated" by rightwing corporations using SECRET formulae.

Clark would have us ACCEPT Corporate Rule, and become docile "partners" with our oppressors. I am not for or against Clark for president. What I think is that Clark HAS to talk this way--as if workers and unions have been "uncooperative"--or Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia won't (s)elect him. Clark has been more vocal against the corporate oil war, and I credit him for that--but he has to balance it with Corporate Ruler talk against worker and union militancy. That's the game. They almost all play it. They want to be the Corporate Democrat who gets chosen, not by us, but by the Corporate Cabal, to take over from Bush and solidify their enormous gain of power. Power to cut salaries and benefits. Power to loot Social Security and other pension funds. Power to gouge us with gas prices and medical costs. Power to create unaccountable global monopolies, without regulation. Power to outsource jobs without penalty. Power to end environmental regulation. Power to end taxation of the super-rich. Power to conduct corporate resource wars. Power to slaughter tens of thousands of people to get their oil. Power to torture. Power to detain without trial. Power to re-write Congressional laws at the whim of the Corporate puppet in the White House. And power to stop us from demanding otherwise by means of open, transparent, verifiable elections.

Not one of them--NOT ONE!--has objected to SECRET corporate control over our elections! And until they do, you can be sure that they are lying to you at least some of the time--and that includes Clark (much as I like the man generally).

[FrenchieCat]

14. If you listen to the Clark sponsored Podcasts which directly deal

with Voting machines, lack of paper trails, etc.....you would understand that Clark clearly understands the problem with the fact that corporations count our votes and they shouldn't.

The below podcasts are long and informative on the issues of voting.

They can all be listened to at: http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/22

August 28, 2006
ClarkCast 023 - Election Integrity Summary
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of the ClarkCast, we summarize the highlights of this months discussion of election integrity in the US. General Clark and our noted experts point out the problems with the current election system, look to potential future problems, and remind us of the importance of free and fair elections to a modern democracy. We hope these interviews and discussions have helped motivate you take action in your state to protect the security of our elections. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 20, 2006
ClarkCast 022 - The Security Of Our Elections, Part II
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of the ClarkCast, we finish our two-part series on the importance of election security. In a roundtable format, Clark supporter MSinLA probes deeper into the current state of US elections with Dr. David Dill, Mark Crispin Miller, and California State Senator Debra Bowen -- candidate for California Secretary of State. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 15, 2006
ClarkCast 021 - The Security Of Our Elections
(Click to listen or download)
In the first of a two-part series, Clark supporter MSinLA interviews noted experts on the topic of elections and election security. In discussing a broad range of potential voting inaccuracies, these interviews tell us much about our current system and how it might be subverted.


With the 2006 mid-term elections less than three months away, the integrity of our voting process is a crucial matter. We hope these interviews will motivate you to take action in your state to protect the integrity of our election system. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 8, 2006
ClarkCast 020 - Election Integrity
(Click to listen or download)
On the heels of the Connecticut Democratic Primary, General Clark brings the issues of the 2006 elections into sharp focus. He talks about the value of voting and, most importantly, how critical it will be to assure that these elections are conducted with integrity. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 31, 2006
ClarkCast 019 - Election Summary
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of The ClarkCast, we summarize our discussion of the importance of the 2006 mid-term elections, putting into perspective the many voices we've heard this month. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Sorry, I've been training myself on how to talk to the uninformed...

regarding stolen elections, so I now typically say "potentially stolen" elections because my emphasis lately has been to stop the theft of future elections. I've found that it is easier to convince uninformed people that there are unacceptable security flaws inherent in today's electronic voting that could lead to someone stealing an election than it is to convince them that elections already were stolen. It depends upon where one choses to put ones emphasis and priority. Right now I want to mobilize as broad a base of concerned citizens around this threat as possible, to get the problem solved, and in my experience talking about it in this way has overall been more productive toward that end. Your experience may vary, and I am not disagreeing with you about prior stolen elections.

Please check out the specific links that Frenchie left you when you get a chance.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Thanks to you and FrenchieCat for the info, the links and all your work!

I must say I am impressed with the links as described--especially inclusion of people like Mark Crispin Miller and Debra Bowen (although Bowen came out for a mere 1% audit the other day--which I found really dismaying--I thought she was smarter than that; she has otherwise been a champion of open government). (Bowen is running for Calif Sec of State, against Diebold shill Bruce McPherson.)

I'm an oldster. First political campaign at 16, volunteer for JFK. In my first vote for Prez, in 1964, I voted for the "peace candidate," LBJ--and saw upwards of 2 MILLION PEOPLE slaughtered for no good reason before it was over. So much for my vote for "peace." Seeing Vietnam II occur at the other end of my life is, to say the very least, appalling to me. And I think that the corporate takeover of our election system is directly responsible for keeping this war going, and for the expansion of this corporate oil war to the entire Middle East that we may be about to see (--that's the Bushite/NeoCons' plan anyway). And I think the reason the Democratic Party leadership has been so MIND-BOGGLINGLY silent about this fraudulent election SYSTEM is that it's the sneaky way to have a war that the people have opposed FROM THE BEGINNING (56% opposed, BEFORE the invasion--Feb. '03--a statistic I will never forget). The people of this country did NOT re-elect that basket case in the debates, Bush, that torturer, that killer. They knew what he had done, and they did NOT choose THAT. And all the approval and issue polls over the last three years, and all the 2004 election evidence that I have reviewed, bears me out. A fraudulent election, made possible by a fraudulent election SYSTEM, deliberately installed, with malice of forethought, during the 2002-2004 period. An illegitimate government. A fascist coup. With our own party leadership largely in collusion. It's sickening. And the only thing I can think to do about it is a massive BOYCOTT of these goddamned election theft machines this fall. Bust the Machines--Vote by Absentee Ballot! They ain't gonna give us back our right to vote voluntarily. We need to force reform NOW--before '08! And I think that an Absentee Ballot protest, aimed at un-rigging the system, will also help turnout (also needed--big turnout can overwhelm the machine advantage to Bushites, in some cases). It's a motivator.

Thanks again for the links on Clark/election reform. I will check them out.

[dogman]

12. I'm sure glad my Union doesn't follow your recipe.

The IBEW has a solid Labor-Management Co-operative Council. We enjoy some of the highest standards in the construction industry. I don't agree with every decision, but that is how a collective agreement works. Clark speaks of strengthening Unions. Until corporations agree to accept unions as partners, workers will suffer. Clark is not lecturing Unions, he is praising them and what they have done and can do.

THANK YOU Wes Clark!

[nealmhughes]

21. I'm a former IBEW member myself, for the defunct LILCO on Long Island.

We had no strike when I was there, and very, very amiable labor/management relations. Management was there to supervise the guys who made electicity, and labor there to make it.
We had "self-insurance" that paid 100% of health costs, including drugs; tuition reimbursement, a great pension plan and our nominal bosses were also our friends.
One machinist was the highest paid person after his overtime at the Shoreham plant, beating out a V.P. and senior reactor operators.
There is no reason for labor and management to be enemies: unfortunately old school stuff like extending respect to the worker is so 1950s, it seems....
In so many places, the rift is so huge: the workers are viewed with absolute suspicion by the management and vice versa, each thinking the one is out to pull a fast one on the other: unfortunately, the fast one all too often these days is to organize a union for labor and to secretly dismantle the factory for San Costaguatagalpa for the suits.
Most trades do not have an antagonistic relationship with their management, either -- how can they? A contractor knows the value of union labor, and isn't busy with "strategy," rather getting a building up!

[Greyhound]

5. I support Wes Clark and this is a fine speech. However, it ignores

the principle issue facing unions as well as the rest of our society, That is, that there simply are not enough stable, good paying jobs left in this country to support the middle class that was the engine for our prosperity.

Under Re:puke: rule, and with a great deal of help from the Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party, we have been consuming the carcass of the great American economy that was created by the phenomenal efforts of the Greatest Generation.

Well, now it is time to face the reality that, like a Thanksgiving Day Turkey on December 1st, there is simply nothing much left. We have no manufacturing base left, that was chopped up, sold, and shipped to Asia in the 80's. The Agricultural industry is 96% owned by the agri-corps and the majority of the employment they do provide is low-paying, no benefits, temporary work. The high-tech and information economy that was supposed to replace the manufacturing jobs lost in the 70's - 80's was strangled in its infancy.

The "temporary" lay-offs of the 70's and 80's are now a permanent fixture in every field of endeavor in amerika. The social contract between business and society has been replaced with "your on your own, sucker!" and there is no sign of this changing.

We stood by while the scavengers picked the remnants of what was and they are now flying off to their next meal, leaving us the bones.

So I ask, just what are the unions going to do to change this, especially since they are one of the greatest victims of it? It doesn't matter how many people belong to a union, if there are no jobs for the members to do. We no longer have any foundation to build an economy on.

Of course this can be fixed, but it seems unlikely that any, but a very few, of the current crop of politicians is willing to make the sacrifice that this kind of change entails.

[Cosmocat]

11. Agreed ....

The sad reality, is the horse is out of the barn, and it ain't coming back ... And, as you accurately note, unions are a victim, and after two decades, starting with Reagan, of legislation aimed at totally neutering them, they have almost no ability to turn it around ...

[bread_and_roses]

7. "Graduated" to management?

Such a usage demeans workers, implicitly conveying the assumption that management is "higher," more "advanced," to be aspired to.

The "job" of management is to maximize productivity and profit, a job at which they look pretty good, facilitated by the continual assualt on Labor, since productivity keeps going up while wages keep going down.

There is no "partnering" with a system that regards Labor as only a "cost" and laborers as disposable and interchangable units of "cost" to be obtained at the lowest possible price.

Yeah, management would be happy to have a "union" that facilitated downsizing, dislocation, re-naming jobs as "management" to deprive those workers of the right to join unions, took on training costs that legitimately belong to the Company, since the Company benefits, and essentially functioned as an adjunct - never a full Professor! - to the needs of management.

Right.

Why isn't Wes Clark calling on "management" this Labor Day to stop Union busting, stop dismantling health care and pension benefits, pay fair wages, and for Corporations to pay their fair share of taxes?

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. In the real world it's usually called a promotion

I see no demeaning implied, least of all from Clark. If there is any person who has risen to the top of an organization, in Clark's case the Army, who has a greater appreciation for the essential importance of the work being done by each and every member of that organization down to the lowest level than Wes Clark, then I am dying to meet him. If you ever listen to Clark speak you know that he never talks for more than three minutes without praising the contributions made by the men and women who make up the base of America's military, the soldiers on the field and in the bases who make everything work, and Clark always looks out for them.

This may not be the perfect world that I fantasize about, but in this one pretty much everyone understands and accepts and even supports that "management work" pays more than line workers receive, and that includes all the foremen and all the office managers, and all the team leaders, and all the mid level management in large organizations, Clark isn't talking about CEO's. People may not understand and accept and support why top management gets paid a hundred times an hour more than a line worker, at least I hope not, but they do understand the concept of getting a significant raise associated with taking on a job that is perceived to carry greater responsibilities. That is the "graduation" that Clark referred to. In a fair and better system there will always be an honest role for management. It will not be abolished by the workers, the relationships instead will be redefined. It is an important topic to discuss but few are willing to have that discussion. Wes Clark is. Good for him.

[FrenchieCat]

10. That is correct Tom. Clark is talking about what needs to be

discussed....not what folks would like to hear him say--Again.

Clark has spoken about Unions and the issues concerning them before. Guess he should just repeat the same thing each time he opens his mouth until he's got a smooth memorized speech offering losta pie in the sky promises. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

17. I don't think you understand what the flaw with this plan really is.

The unions have been decimated, by legislative action, for almost 30 years now and no longer have the power to do any of the things he is calling for. Because of the entirely one-sided laws, in most cases passed by Democratically controlled legislatures, have rendered them nearly useless. They can't even sustain a strike any longer because of the laws that let the employer simply replace the workers.

Now maybe he has a plan to address this and it is simply not politic to talk about it before an election, but without some drastic changes, none of what he is talking about is even remotely possible.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I understand....but I don't think "all is lost" for unions if they can

increase their membership....as one tact.

Of course, it goes without saying that our government has a big role to play in providing Unions the leverage that they need to have to be a force.....

But in addition, Unions are people powered. When workers have a choice in the decision whether to unionize or not, and they see more benefits that directly affects them...even when the bargaining aspects of Union work goes bad.....than they will likely than not vote to unionize.

I believe that what you are saying is accurate in reference to what is needed...but I believe that what Clark is saying is also what is needed. I don't believe it to be an all or nothing; this or that proposition.....i.e., takes more than one avenue to strenghten Unions at this point......especially considering how much Unions have been "beat down".

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Actually Clark enjoys and supports political discussion

He is never afraid to explore new thoughts and to later rethink them in the light of informed feedback. It's part of what I like about him. After he retired from the Army, but before he entered politics, Clark ran an open internet public think tank forum where he posed questions to members for discussion. Unfortunately I only discovered it a few weeks before he entered the Presidential race, at which point that was discontinued, so I barely got at taste for it. It was at leadershipforAmerica.org (now a dead site).

Clark is an honest to goodness intellectual, he likes wrestling with the big themes and questions. My sense is that he starts out tackling a big problem with some firm philosophical guiding values as underpinnings, and then he tries to see how they can best be adapted to the specific changing circumstances at hand in attempting to resolve critical problems. I see some of that in this statement that Clark issued. He isn't at the point of proposing implementing legislation or anything nearly that specific yet. Clark is a firm believer in the importance of organized labor, and the need for working people to have counter balancing power available to them to offset the structural advantages big Capital interests have, and the temptation to exploit labor that is inherent in corporate Capitalism if left unchecked. Working from that starting point he looks at the steady overall decline in organized labor's Labor's influence over decades and asks tough questions that our side of the equation might not be that comfortable looking at. It's vintage Clark. What part of that decline might be a reflection of a dated Union mind set that doesn't correspond as well as it previously did to current economic realities? Capital interests need to confront questions of that magnitude periodically also. The shift from a warehoused inventory system to targeted production on demand is an example that comes to mind but there are many.

Clark is less proposing specific solutions here I think than he is proposing an area of thought that begs to be explored and debated within the Democratic Party, Organized Labor, and society at large. Clark will not sell out our Unions. When he was in the Army Clark was a true believer in taking care of the needs of the troops and leaving no one behind in order for the larger mission to succeed, but Clark will push Unions to rethink their role in a changing society given a weakening hand and the diminishing role that they are being left with to currently play, now that the vast majority of the work force is unorganized.

This is also consistent with Clark's military training. If objectively the facts show that a campaign is loosing ground and failing to achieve its objectives, than it is essential to rethink the logic behind that campaign. The consequences of refusing to do so can be deadly. Keep your eye on the ball, the desired goal, and don't get overly attached to trying to get there in a specific predetermined way if that way is meeting overwhelming and potentially insurmountable resistance. Think outside the box if need be but stay flexible to respond to events as they actually unfold rather than events as they were once predicted. Tactics that worked well in the past might not work well currently if the opposition has successfully adjusted to them.

Like I said, Clark believes in Unions, he is a friend of Organized Labor, and he does not want to push Unions to go anywhere that they don't agree makes sense for them. Clark got good grades from organized labor for his political platform in 2004.

[snowbear]

16. How awesome to FINALLY see the good General on CNN again!!!

Since he started his Faux gig, the only time I ever see him is when someone shares a clip on here (I'll watch clips, I won't turn on Faux )..

Wolf (Situation Room) just showed the clip of him reading part of his NeoCON report.

Great to see him again!!

[PeaceProgProsp]

20. Why appeal to labor to change their model? Why aren't we asking

management to change their model when it comes to the treatment of labor? And why aren't we asking government to change their model too?

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-labor statutes that need to be repealed, and we need to take head-on corporations like WalMart which set the bar so low for the treatment of labor for entire labor markets due to their size.

[FrenchieCat]

22. cause management ain't listening ......

but, Wes has spoken about all of that before.....

This is in addition to what Wes Clark has previously addressed.

Fighting for Labor

Protecting workers' rights to bargain collectively for the greater good

The history of American economic progress is largely the story of laborers who banded together into unions, in order to bargain collectively for the dignity, respect, wages, and benefits they deserve. I understand the lessons that this history provides. And that is why standing up for workers and unions will be one of my highest priorities as president.

President Bush's record on labor is abysmal. He has taken every opportunity to weaken unions and set back the cause of workers' rights. As President, I'll take the important and long-overdue steps to assist American workers achieve better wages and benefits, access to health care, and a greater say in their working conditions. Here's what I'll do:


Raise the minimum wage. The real value of the minimum wage has declined 25 percent since 1979. A living wage for all workers was the right idea back then, and it's the right idea now. I support raising the minimum wage - and ensuring that it keeps pace with the cost of living in the future.

Empower workers to organize. As president I'll push for a "card check" law, requiring employers to recognize unions once a majority of workers have indicated their intent to unionize.

End union-busting. Harassment, intimidation, and firing of would-be organizers is, unfortunately, not yet a relic of the 1930s. It happens today. My administration will be vigilant in identifying and prosecuting such illegal activity.

Retain Federal wage provisions for workers. The government should set a good example for all employers by paying fair wages and benefits. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that federal contractors pay their workers local prevailing wages. The historic Fair Labor Standards Act solidified legal protection for overtime pay. As President, I'll protect these vital safeguards from those who want to dismantle them.

Protect workers on the job. The Bush Administration has instructed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ease penalties on employers who expose their workers to hazards on the job. Bush has also attempted to cut funding for OSHA, which employs fewer inspectors now than it did in 1980. These reckless policies put all workers at risk. I support stiff penalties for employers who violate the law, and increased funding for OSHA and its companion research agency. And I'll replace the Bush Administration's weak, voluntary ergonomics standards with real, enforceable rules that protect the health of American workers.

Promote free and fair trade. Trade has the potential to raise living standards both here and abroad, but we must ensure that the terms of trade are fair, and that we are competing on an equal playing field. Labor rights are human rights, and I'll treat them that way -- internationally-recognized core labor standards must be central elements of all new trade agreements. We must also improve our enforcement of labor provisions in existing agreements. Finally, we must be vigilant in our approach to unfair practices outside of the treaty context. For example, Bush has failed to prevent China from manipulating its currency, hurting American workers. As President, I'll do better.

Increase access to health care. My health care plan provides every single American with affordable access to health care. The plan reduces premiums for many who already have insurance through a system of tax credits. For workers without employee-sponsored health care, I also propose a new, low-cost insurance option: access to the same federal health care plan provided to members of Congress.
http://www.clark04.com/issues/americasworkers/

[Jim Sagle]

24. This is good stuff from Wes.

It's not really about cooperating with management - that's protective phrasing to disarm the right wing.

It's about unions forming a web of cooperation among themselves - TAKING OVER functions that Wall Street forced management to abdicate.

As unions swap ideas and personnel, they could become QUITE powerful.

Wes is a 21st century Wobbly!

[Donna Zen]

25. Shhh! Don't tell the media: they keep calling him a moderate

He's talked about this idea before. I've been thinking about what he had to say, and while I'm stuck on the idea of management, I like it. Wes Clark has also said that the unions could/should use the same rationale to grab some of that "faith-based" money. IOW, daycare, counciling, etc. This would go a long way to strenghening unions, and since they would also provide movable services, it would certainly attract more members. Out of the box thinking about unions for the 21st century.

[autorank]

26. I love this guy II. (posted it earlier tonight;) K&stronglyR

Well, he's thinking deeply and with some insight I suspect. At least it's interesting and provocative. I'm still appreciating the earlier comments I saw on 911...

But of course, Clark can think deeply...he had to go to class, study, work at it..no free lunch for him and yet he's more sophisticated and worldly on multiple levels than his counterparts who had it all handed to them (I'm working a populist theme for you here, which I believe to be dead on, btw).

[FrenchieCat]

27. Yes, we need some progressive thinkers.....that are

thinking out of the box. The box is old and worn and needs some revamping....according to all stats.

He's also for the de-conglamoration of the media....which means he'll never get the help of the media in building his image....that's for goddamn sure!

[autorank]

29. Frenchie, don't take offense...

...the box has become nothing more than an uncleaned cat box:evilgrin:

[snot]

28. Part of the solution,

which I think even the unions have begun to recognize, is that they have to go global. I think that's got to happen eventually, but the transition between now and then will be at least somewhat painful.