JBMedia

Monday, September 2, 2013

Fast- food workers protests: Union images of the labor force don’t match reality. - Slate Magazine

Fast- food workers protests: Union images of the labor force don’t match reality. - Slate Magazine
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
“If you work for a living, you’re labor, too!” So read the text of a full-page newspaper advertisement sponsored by the American Federation of Labor  in the spring of 1947. As the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act was wending its way through Congress, the AFL tried to convince the general public that it represented everyone, not just unionized workers.
This was a tough sell—and it still is. The chosen face of organized labor has long been the noble manufacturing worker, often one who produced machinery for American war efforts. This worker was white and male, he was his family’s sole breadwinner, and he probably wore overalls and muscles. Long after the AFL’s 1947 appeal, he remained the quintessential American laborer of the postwar period.

A Congress of Industrial Organizations cartoon from 1948
A Congress of Industrial Organizations cartoon from 1948

Courtesy of Reuther Library, Wayne State University.
Successful branding efforts by the AFL and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which joined forces in 1955, helped win both public support and more favorable contracts for their members. But the campaigns also carried hidden costs. The indelible image of the blue-collar working man now competes with the more diverse demographics of the actual American working class. That cognitive dissonance around what labor “should” look like is part of the challenge facing fast-food workers demonstrating for higher pay, better working conditions, and the right to unionize this Labor Day.

Advertisement
The demands of fast-food workers in some 60 cities across the country aren’t extreme or unusual. We might imagine a steelworker, autoworker, or miner making similar demands. But the burger flipper at McDonald’s or the cashier at Wendy’s doesn’t have a century-long heritage of imagery celebrating their contributions to the American economy. It’s harder to romanticize the work of service occupations, which employ nearly 18 percent of the American workforce, compared with about 9 percent in manufacturing jobs—a gap that will continue to widen as the service sector expands and manufacturing shrinks.
Yet food service workers are in far worse shape than those who work in manufacturing. The average hourly earnings of workers in nonsupervisory positions is just more than $11 an hour, with food-preparation and serving workers taking home less than $9 an hour, on average. (By contrast, steelworkers receive more than $24 an hour on average, and those in motor vehicle manufacturing are paid more than $27 an hour.) Fewer than 2.5 percent of food-service and accommodation workers are represented by a union, which would likely improve their wages: Unionized full-time food workers make $585 per week on average, compared to $424 for non-union workers.
In the postwar period, union leaders would rally pubic support by stressing that the men of the labor movement had mouths to feed. In a 1947 newspaper advertisement against Taft-Hartley, the CIO featured a picture of a young girl asking, “Why is my Pop worried?” The answer: He might have to go on relief, just as he did during the bad old days of the Depression. “These three are all tied together—families, unions and the United States of America,” the ad argued.

From the April 14, 1947, edition of CIO News
From the April 14, 1947, edition of CIO News Courtesy of Tamiment Library, New York University
Like “Pop,” the fast-food workers demonstrating across the country are often family breadwinners; 40 percent are 25 or older, and about 25 percent of them have children, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. But these breadwinner parents don’t look like Pop in many other respects. For one thing, 58 percent of food preparation workers are women. For another, among employed men, 22 percent of blacks and Latinos work in service jobs, compared with just 14 percent of whites. (Among employed women, 28 percent of blacks and fullly one-third of Latinas are in service, compared with 20 percent of white women.) And unlike Pop, they may not be big and brawny, even if the work they do is physically demanding.

Herbert Block cartoon
A Herbert Block cartoon from the Feb. 19, 1955, edition of the Garden City Newsday following the merger of the AFL and CIO. Courtesy of Reuther Library, Wayne State Universityhttp://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/fast_food_workers_protests_union_images_of_the_labor_force_don_t_match_reality.html

The gap between our entrenched image of the working class and its demographic reality creates a paradox. On the one hand, it’s clear that unionizing would make the lives of millions of service-industry workers better. On the other, if unions were built to protect the industrial worker in overalls, it’s easy to see why the public might think that as those workers become fewer and farther between, then union power should shrink accordingly.
That perception needs to be shattered for fast food workers to win higher pay, better working conditions, and the right to unionize. As we celebrate Labor Day this year, we should rethink our concept of labor—and of who really does the laboring

Hezbollah mobilises ahead of potential US Syria strike - Yahoo! News

Hezbollah mobilises ahead of potential US Syria strike - Yahoo! News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah group, a close ally of the Syrian regime, is redeploying its forces ahead of possible US strikes on Damascus, according to witnesses in Lebanon.
The reports come as the daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to both Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, said on Monday that the group had "called on all its officers and members to man their positions."
Residents speaking to AFP in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre said there appeared to be a general mobilisation of the group's members, even if such a movement was not being publicly discussed.
Many Hezbollah fighters have disappeared from local villages in the last five days, though strict security measures around group headquarters and checkpoints have remained in place, residents said.
The situation is the same in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, a stronghold of the organisation.
Residents said fighters, including gunners, had left their regular posts, and switched off their mobile phones to ensure they could not be traced.
In the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut, also considered a Hezbollah bastion, teenagers have replaced more experienced fighters at checkpoints inspecting cars entering the district.
A Hezbollah spokesman declined to comment on the reported redeployment of the group's forces.
On Monday, Al-Akhbar also reported that the "Syrian army has mobilised units that have not participated until now in the conflict."
"It has established an operations room... with Hezbollah and the units in charge of missiles are at an unprecedented level of alert," the daily added.
"The Islamic resistance (Hezbollah) has called on all its officers and members to man their positions," the newspaper reported.
The reported mobilisation comes after US President Barack Obama said he favoured the use of military action against Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
But Obama has said he will seek approval from Congress for any strikes in response to the attack, for which the Syrian regime denies responsibility.
Hezbollah is a close ally of the Syrian regime, and has dispatched fighters to battle alongside Syrian troops and against rebels seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
Wadah Charara, an expert on the group, says it commands around 30,000 fighters, including 10,000 with extensive combat experience.
Between 800 and 1,2000 Hezbollah fighters are thought to have taken part in the Syrian regime's battle to recapture the town of Qusayr in central Homs province earlier this year.
 http://news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-mobilises-ahead-potential-us-syria-strike-191153343.html

White Supremacist Ex-Con Caught With Arsenal of Weapons

White Supremacist Ex-Con Caught With Arsenal of Weapons
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
What was supposed to be a bust for counterfeit sports jerseys turned out to be so much more, after federal agents raided the home and business of Richard Schmidt. The Ohio resident, who is an ex-con, was discovered to have the kind of firearm stash that your favorite rapper only raps about, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
But what began with investigators chasing box loads of counterfeit jerseys and baseball caps ended in one of the most perplexing seizures of weapons in Ohio: Authorities in December nabbed 18 guns that included assault rifles, more than 40,000 rounds of ammunition and body armor from Schmidt, a felon who killed a man and wounded two other people in 1989.
Investigators also found possible links to white supremacist groups. He had a VHS tape of a national meeting of the National Socialist Movement and stickers from the National Alliance, according to an inventory of seized items filed in U.S. District Court in Toledo. Agents also obtained notes with the names of Jewish and NAACP leaders in Detroit.
The names of the black leaders in Schmidt's notes were not released, but there is also evidence to suggest that Schmidt is a racist who would target Jews and members of ethnic groups. The man he was convicted of killing in 1989 was Hispanic.
Schmidt returned to Toledo in 2003 after getting out of prison. State incorporation records show he soon formed a nonprofit, the Vinland Preservation League, designed to push environmental and historical conservation and preservation.
The name of the nonprofit suggests more about Schmidt. In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, made note of a profile on yahoo.com involving a Rick Schmidt from Toledo, who went by vinlander101. Photos from the profile match Schmidt.
The law center lists the Vinlanders Social Club as a rogue group that "had a reputation for drinking, brawling and following a racist version of Odinism, a form of ancient paganism practiced by Vikings."
 http://www.theroot.com/buzz/white-supremacist-ex-con-caught-arsenal-weapons

Forward Progressives — President Obama Just Made a Brilliant Move On Possible U.S. Military Intervention in Syria

Forward Progressives — President Obama Just Made a Brilliant Move On Possible U.S. Military Intervention in Syria
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The big news of the day is President Obama’s comments about his plans to seek approval from Congress for military intervention in Syria.
Now, for many liberals this was the last thing they wanted to hear.  For Libertarians it’s just “more proof” that President Obama is no different than George W. Bush.
But for Republicans, what the heck are they going to say?  In short—nothing.  They can’t.
And that’s why this move is brilliant.
The President knows Syria is going to get much worse before it gets better.  I’ve frequently seen the argument, “With so much bloodshed already, do we really need U.S. bombs causing more?”  Well, that’s not really an accurate way to look at it.  Some others may ask, “Is the loss of 1,000 lives worth saving 100,000?”  It’s a rhetorical question that really has no right or wrong answer, but should definitely cause you to pause for a moment and think about the consequences of any choice we make.


Now some might say “All life is sacred, how can you value any one life over another?”  And that’s true.  But people are going to die in Syria regardless if we get involved or not.  Over 120,000 have died in nearly 3 years of their civil war.  Our involvement is meant to try and curb some of that death.  Nobody is saying if we get involved that there won’t be the loss of innocent lives.  It’s war; horrific decisions are made all the time.  As I’ve said plenty of times, there is no such thing as a “clean war.”  If we get involved it’s meant to try and expedite an end to the seemingly endless bloodshed.  And yes, that means our bombs and missiles will most likely kill innocents.  Like I said, it’s war.  Is it better if we did nothing and simply allowed thousands to die anyway?  Is an innocent death less of a tragedy because they were killed by Bashar al-Assad’s weapons?
But I still don’t know how I feel about our possible involvement.  And that’s not what I see as brilliant in Obama’s plans.
What I think he did that’s absolutely genius is he’s put the burden on Congress to decide what we’ll do.  He put his stamp of approval on what he feels we should do, but now he’s sent it on to Congress.
While Republicans harped on about the “tyrant” President Obama who would circumvent Congress to wage war, he laughed right in their face and endorsed military action — but only with Congressional approval.
Now what can Republicans say?  If they don’t support military involvement, then don’t approve it and that’ll be the end of it.  If they do, then he will.
But wait, endorsing our involvement in Syria would mean Republicans would have to support something President Obama has endorsed.  Which is something they just don’t do.
However, if they choose not to endorse action in Syria, how can they continue to claim to be the party that’s “hard on terror?”  Isn’t this the party that voted for Bush, McCain and Romney — all men who governed and campaigned on preventative war?
Doesn’t curbing violence in Syria qualify as preventative war?
Furthermore, don’t they try and paint President Obama as “weak on terror?”  Well, he’s made a bold (and unpopular with liberals) stance on Syria to hopefully end the violence and take out a corrupt government that has probably used chemical weapons on its own people.
So now who’s going to be “weak on terror?”
But again, for us to get involved in Syria, Republicans would have to endorse something President Obama supports.
And we know most of them won’t do this — and so does he.  That’s what I think makes this absolutely brilliant.
He can take a bold call for his support of military action, something that will anger many within his own party, and force Republicans to either look weak on terror or support something he’s publicly said he supports.
No matter which decision they make, it’s going to make them look weak.
Their whole bet had been that Obama would either back off and look weak himself, or bypass Congress and go into Syria without support.
Well, he did neither.  Essentially, he called their bluff and put it on Congress (more specifically Republicans) to make that call.
But I don’t think for even a second he believes he’ll get approval from Congress, because Republicans have had the political strategy the last few years of, “Whatever Obama does, just do the opposite.”  I always use the joke that if Obama came out in support of oxygen, Republicans would suffocate.
So while liberals can get up in arms over Obama publicly endorsing military involvement in Syria, they always tend to forget that he’s a brilliant chess player.
Remember this past spring when liberals threw a fit over his budget proposal that included a chained CPI?  The outrage was ridiculous.  I told these people who were overreacting to calm down, that Obama had a plan.  Then at the end of the day, almost exactly what I said would happen—did.  Republicans turned on the chained CPI proposal (something they had actually pushed for) and the budget never even sniffed the possibility of being passed.
Which most of the American people blamed Congressional Republicans for — something I theorized was Obama’s plan with his budget all along.
Now he’s doing the same thing with his decision on Syria.  He made his stand, called their bluff (not going it without Congressional support as the right-wing media had fear mongered on for weeks) and has decided to let Congress decide.


And if the last few years of Congressional Republican behavior is any indication, we stand absolutely no chance at getting involved in Syria.
Which will be truly ironic coming from the party which started our last 2 wars and had its last two presidential candidates run on the promise of being “tough on terror.”  So I guess in 2016, whoever Republicans pick to run won’t be able to use that line to pander to their voters.
Unless Republicans do what they haven’t done since Obama became President — support something he’s endorsed.  And I’m pretty sure Obama knew, with his comments today, that is something they just won’t do.
But at the end of the day, Republicans in Congress will have the tougher questions (and decision) to make — not President Obama.
He doesn’t need to worry about being re-elected, but they do.
 http://www.forwardprogressives.com/president-obama-just-made-a-brilliant-move-on-possible-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria/