NLRB Gives Workers the Shaft

Harold Myerson, who has a column that appears in the Washington Post, wrote on November 21, 2007 about some recent rulings by the NLRB. The NLRB was established during the Franklin Roosevelt administration to protect the rights of workers to organize unions. Unfortunately, since Bush as been president and controlled the appointment process, it has become, to use Myerson's phrase, "The National Labor Ruination Board."

As Myerson points out, there are two recent rulings that show just how far the Board will bend logic and reasoning to arrive at employer friendly decisions. In one case the Board ruled that even if 51% of employees sign union cards saying they want representation, the employer must post a notice informing the employees that if 30% of them sign a petition saying they don't want a union, the wishes of the 51% will be ignored and an election will take place. The Board reasoned that the cards might have been the result of "group pressure."

In another case, however, the Broad ruled that if there is a union in place, and 51% of the workers sign cards saying they don't want the union to represent them any longer, that is fine, and no election has to be held. In other words, cards that help unions are bad, but cards that help employers are good.

Most social liberals deplore the conservative attempts to pack the courts because of what it will do to the Roe v. Wade decision. Roe, however, is not the real reason why conservatives are trying to pack the courts. The real reasons are to help corporations avoid laws that hamper their freedom of action and to help the Federal government increase its ability to monitor and control people. Roe is just the excuse that conservatives give to the religious right to get their help.

Voinovich Does It Again

Once again we have a high-profile story on how Voinovich is breaking with Bush over Iraq. This time the media is using a supposed comment Voinovich made about how Bush has "f---d up" in Iraq. Of course, once again Voinovich gets to have his cake and eat it too. He gets to look like he is actually breaking with Bush on Iraq, but when the chips are down, he won't vote against Bush.

This week, there will be a vote on whether to allow an "up or down" vote on the Reed-Levin plan to end American military involvement in the Iraq War. Republicans are threatening a filibuster and the Democrats need 60 votes to cut-off debate. All Voinovich has to do is vote to cut-off debate to send Bush a real message about how he feels about the war. He doesn't even have to vote in favor of the amendment, just allowing a vote would be a way to show Bush what he thinks. Our bet is that he won't do it, that when the chips are down, he will once again support Bush. Any takers?

UPDATE: Click here for an excellent column by Harold Myerson of the Washington Post on the same topic.

UPDATE TWO: Yep, he did it. He voted against the cloture motion which means that the Reed-Levin amendment won't come up for a vote. So just exactly does George V. plan to force Bubble-boy to change course in Iraq? Maybe by wishing really really hard while clapping his hands?

Myerson Column in Washington Post Makes a Great Point

Harold Myerson had a column in the Wednesday, May 30, 2007 edition of the Washington Post called "Dying for an Iraq that Isn't". The point of the column, which can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title, is that American policy assumes that there is a non-sectarian government in Iraq which Iraqis will support. He points out that such a government simply doesn't exist. The reason why it doesn't exist is that the Iraqis themselves don't seem to want such a government. Myerson points out that in the elections in 2005 the political party that ran on a platform of a non-sectarian Iraqi government got 8% of the vote.

The presence of American troops in Iraq is not what makes Iraqis kill each other. They kill each other because they are caught up in a sectarian war pitting Sunnis against Shias, and maybe both against the Kurds. What is the role of American troops in such a situation? What side are we supposed to be helping? American lives are too precious, and too few, to waste because the American military is acting like some kind of armed referee.

Maybe Joe Biden has the best idea: create three fairly autonomous regions in Iraq and let Iraqis group together as Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish Muslims. Recognize that we can't change the culture of Iraq, only Iraqis can do that. Give the Iraqis some of that "tough love" that GOP types are always talking about.

Harold Myerson Column on the Strengths & Weaknesses of Three Top Dems

Harold Myerson of the Washington Post has a very interesting column about the appearance of the three top Democratic presidential candidates at the recent DNC meeting. He writes that each of them displayed strengths and weaknesses.

Edwards strength was his ability to make the case on how Bush's economic policies are hurting Americans, especially Americans in union jobs. His weakness was that he didn't outline proposals to reach the unorganized part of the middle class, people who work at keyboards, not machines.

Clinton's strength was her ability to state how devastating Bush's policies have been to the entire middle class. Her weakness was that her policy proposals seem incremental and not enough to take on the wide scope of the problems she accurately identifies.

Obama's strength was his ability to speak to the destruction of faith and hope in government that conservative policies have brought about, but his weakness was that he didn't have policy proposals to match his language

The entire column can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title.