Get E-Mail Updates

Put the 'Labor' Back in Secretary of Labor (Our Secretary of Labor is M.I.A., Part 2)

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

[continued from part 1]

Regardless of who wins the presidential election, we need a secretary of labor who thinks and acts like Frances Perkins.

Perkins was the secretary of labor appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 to help him address the economic crisis left by eight years of Coolidge and Hoover leadership. She came to Washington, D.C., with a mission -- in her words, to serve God, FDR, and the working man. She came with a vision. She wanted to get people back to work, pass national standards for wage payment, and establish a social security system. She and her colleagues created the jobs programs that built many of our nation's parks and bridges, she passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, the most comprehensive wage protection law in the nation, and she helped design the Social Security System.

Learning from Perkins' lessons, here's what the new secretary of labor should do:

First, advocate stopping the workplace immigration raids. When Perkins took over, the Department of Labor was responsible for workplace raids and she stopped them immediately. They were wrong then and they are wrong today. Although the Department of Homeland Security, not Labor, has jurisdiction for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Labor secretary should speak forcefully against this intimidation of workers that is a gross waste of taxpayer money.

Second, enforce the wage and hour laws in meaningful ways. Employers are stealing billions of dollars annually from the paychecks of millions of workers. Wage theft is a national crisis and the Department of Labor is asleep at the wheel. Just as an unregulated banking industry has brought forth catastrophe, unregulated workplaces have enabled employers to steal wages from workers on a mass scale. In 1941, Perkins had 1,500 investigators in the field visiting 12 percent of the country's workplaces to ensure that employers were paying people legally. Today, with more than 10 times as many workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, there are half as many investigators. Employers know that the chances of getting caught stealing wages is minuscule and that if they are caught, the consequences are insignificant. The secretary must go after wage theft. What better economic stimulus for the society than workers getting the wages they are owed and spending them in their communities?

Third, lead the charge in supporting unemployed workers. Unemployment insurance should be available widely to workers, and job-creation strategies should be pursued aggressively, both through public incentives for private job creation and public jobs programs. Let's create those green jobs everyone is talking about.

Fourth, commit to developing the 21st-century supports America's workers need. Perkins focused on putting in place social security for America's workers. Today we need a national health care program. Forty-seven million workers and their families without health care is not in the best interest of workers or the nation as a whole. The secretary of labor should play a role in guaranteeing health care to all Americans.

Fifth, support the fundamental rights of all workers to organize into unions of their choice. Although Perkins wasn't the first choice of labor unions for secretary, she overcame their hesitations with her steadfast support for workers' rights to organize in the workplace. Elaine Chao, in contrast, has used her public voice to attack the Employee Free Choice Act, the most significant labor law reform to come along in decades.

When the economy is in shambles, it is America's workers who take the biggest hit. Perhaps in the coming weeks and months, we will all understand better what has happened to our economy. But as we move forward as a nation in addressing the crisis, we need a secretary of labor who knows workers, cares for their concerns, and speaks up for them. Our current secretary of labor is missing in action. We need to put the "labor" back in secretary of labor.

Kim Bobo is the executive director of Interfaith Worker Justice and the author of the forthcoming Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid-And What We Can Do About It (New Press, December).

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 3:52pm

It is worth noting that Kim Bobo promotes the Employee Free Choice Act, but does not say what it will do.

Please allow me to fill in that little detail. EFCA essentially eliminates secret ballot elections as a means of determining worker support for unions. It substitutes a card-check process in which workers lose their privacy and which is extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Unions have claimed a wide range of abuses by employers in the midst of union organizing drives, but they have never alleged that the National Labor Relations Board has failed to hold the actual elections in a fair way.

EFCA "solves" the unions' problems by eliminating one of the few things in labor law that works right. This is a lousy idea that Christians, who uphold the dignity of working men and women, ought to oppose.

LV

by: captainplanet

10-17-2008 @ 3:59pm

I agree that we should allow workers to organize if they so choose. However, not allowing them to vote by secret ballot just makes no sense to me.

by: jurisnaturalist

10-19-2008 @ 11:43am

mscynthia,
Is it the size of some corporations which makes them threatening, or is it the perversion of the law made vulnerable to arbitrary influence which creates the incentive for corporations to exert influence.
I'd argue the latter and that until we eliminate privilege in law, corporations can't help but seek out every advantage as they compete with one another, forcing prices down, to the consumer's benefit.
The problem is with government, the solution is in less of it.
Nathanael Snow

by: jurisnaturalist

10-17-2008 @ 3:07pm

Recommending FDR's labor secretary as a model for future occupants of this position is to recommend either more war (which is what really pulled us out of unemployment) or more unemployment. Unemployment rates were worse after FDR's administration imposed their regulations and price controls, not better. Economic ignorance is widespread.

by: pawheel

10-20-2008 @ 1:25pm

The Bush administration in a nutshell:

The EPA fights against and won't enforce environmental laws.

The department of Labor is working against worker privacy.

The Department of Defense now invades countries it chooses.

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 3:52pm

It is worth noting that Kim Bobo promotes the Employee Free Choice Act, but does not say what it will do.

Please allow me to fill in that little detail. EFCA essentially eliminates secret ballot elections as a means of determining worker support for unions. It substitutes a card-check process in which workers lose their privacy and which is extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Unions have claimed a wide range of abuses by employers in the midst of union organizing drives, but they have never alleged that the National Labor Relations Board has failed to hold the actual elections in a fair way.

EFCA "solves" the unions' problems by eliminating one of the few things in labor law that works right. This is a lousy idea that Christians, who uphold the dignity of working men and women, ought to oppose.

LV

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:33pm

LV-
Can you elaborate on your statement that the EFCA "essentially eliminates secret ballot elections"? I was under the assumption that there still would be the secret ballot option. Also, what is the card-check process? I apologize for being so uninformed.
Thanks

by: captainplanet

10-17-2008 @ 3:59pm

I agree that we should allow workers to organize if they so choose. However, not allowing them to vote by secret ballot just makes no sense to me.

by: paradoxtor

10-17-2008 @ 8:42pm

The secret ballot option is the "unions option", not the workers. Anyone who thinks only empoyers use intimidation is either naive or has never worked in a union environment. My experience as a worker in a union shop was that I had two bosses instead of one. As a member of management I will remember the union reps reply when I told him I wanted to do what the employees wanted about an issue and was told it didn't matter what they wanted, it only mattered what the "union" wanted.
This labor issue is in my opinion the absolute weakest issue on this website in terms of trying to portray it as a justice issue. No doubt there are abusive employers, but the issue of labor and management is much more complex than to simply toss out accusations of "wage theft" which mostly depend on a point of view rather than legal definition or arguably even moral definition.
I have yet to hear an explanation of how a secret ballot allows the employer to intimidate the employee. That the union can intimidate an employee in a non-secret ballot situation is without question.

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:50pm

Thanks for that perspective, paradoxtor.
I have little experience with unions, so I have a hard time making a sound judgment on whether they are good for workers or not.
Of course, you always hear the rhetoric from the Democrats: "we will create American jobs; strong, union jobs." As if that is the ideal. But I have heard from friends that the unions are not so strong for our country. They can tend undermine the employer's ability to demand productivity, or even a full day's work, from their employees.
But again, I have very limited knowledge of the unions and how they work, so I appreciate any insights, or links to unbiased websites.

by: jurisnaturalist

10-19-2008 @ 11:43am

mscynthia,
Is it the size of some corporations which makes them threatening, or is it the perversion of the law made vulnerable to arbitrary influence which creates the incentive for corporations to exert influence.
I'd argue the latter and that until we eliminate privilege in law, corporations can't help but seek out every advantage as they compete with one another, forcing prices down, to the consumer's benefit.
The problem is with government, the solution is in less of it.
Nathanael Snow

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 9:37pm

Paradoxtor has it basically right. This is a really backward idea and even a pro-union liberal like George McGovern sees problems with it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222...

In card-check, a union collects signatures from workers and when they have a majority signed up, they must be recognized. The decision to sign or not cannot be kept private -- union officials collect the cards themselves -- and there's no neutral observer to make sure that cards aren't signed under intimidation or fakery.

A secret ballot vote is still possible, but it's basically up to the union. If they don't think they have enough support to win a vote, they can collect the signatures from their supporters, then finagle or twist arms to make up the difference.

LV

by: uniondiva

10-17-2008 @ 11:38pm

The employee free choice act puts the power to choose in the workers hands. right now, when workers try to join a union, they often face harassment, intimidation, even being fired. This way, if a majority of workers want a union, they can get it.. without being harassed or threatened. It provides rules that empower workers and evens the playing field when they want to improve their wages and benefits. go to www. iwj.org for more informatio

by: pawheel

10-20-2008 @ 1:25pm

The Bush administration in a nutshell:

The EPA fights against and won't enforce environmental laws.

The department of Labor is working against worker privacy.

The Department of Defense now invades countries it chooses.

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2008 @ 1:52am

Uniondiva,

How does a secret ballot vote, administered by the federal government, create harassment or intimidation?

If employers are harassing or firing workers, why not clamp down on harassment or illegal firings?

What does George McGovern get wrong?

LV

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:33pm

LV-
Can you elaborate on your statement that the EFCA "essentially eliminates secret ballot elections"? I was under the assumption that there still would be the secret ballot option. Also, what is the card-check process? I apologize for being so uninformed.
Thanks

by: paradoxtor

10-17-2008 @ 8:42pm

The secret ballot option is the "unions option", not the workers. Anyone who thinks only empoyers use intimidation is either naive or has never worked in a union environment. My experience as a worker in a union shop was that I had two bosses instead of one. As a member of management I will remember the union reps reply when I told him I wanted to do what the employees wanted about an issue and was told it didn't matter what they wanted, it only mattered what the "union" wanted.
This labor issue is in my opinion the absolute weakest issue on this website in terms of trying to portray it as a justice issue. No doubt there are abusive employers, but the issue of labor and management is much more complex than to simply toss out accusations of "wage theft" which mostly depend on a point of view rather than legal definition or arguably even moral definition.
I have yet to hear an explanation of how a secret ballot allows the employer to intimidate the employee. That the union can intimidate an employee in a non-secret ballot situation is without question.

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:50pm

Thanks for that perspective, paradoxtor.
I have little experience with unions, so I have a hard time making a sound judgment on whether they are good for workers or not.
Of course, you always hear the rhetoric from the Democrats: "we will create American jobs; strong, union jobs." As if that is the ideal. But I have heard from friends that the unions are not so strong for our country. They can tend undermine the employer's ability to demand productivity, or even a full day's work, from their employees.
But again, I have very limited knowledge of the unions and how they work, so I appreciate any insights, or links to unbiased websites.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:12am

If thats your only solution then God help us. Better brace yourself for WWIII.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:43am

So what were you watching on Friday night? I saw this.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10172008/prof...

As people of faith what should be our role in seeing that the power struggle between corporations and those that labor for them is a fair one.

Do we want to live in a world where government subsidizes health care for the Wal-marts we consume?

We live in a world where the corporations that we work for can even find a way to read through our mail electronic or otherwise if motivated enough.

In a world where the corporate world can dance circles around our nations unions with their access to technology I don't think that the playing field is very level. This is one place in which the world is not very flat at all.

If we are to be truly helpful to those who struggle for a living wage I think we need to get up to speed and understand with more sophistication the power and brute force that international corporations can wield if tested.

I pray that we will be served by leaders that get that and face it courageously.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 11:29am

http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/

I guess we are not using the right expression. Poor working people prefer being descrifbed as economically distressed workers.

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 9:37pm

Paradoxtor has it basically right. This is a really backward idea and even a pro-union liberal like George McGovern sees problems with it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222...

In card-check, a union collects signatures from workers and when they have a majority signed up, they must be recognized. The decision to sign or not cannot be kept private -- union officials collect the cards themselves -- and there's no neutral observer to make sure that cards aren't signed under intimidation or fakery.

A secret ballot vote is still possible, but it's basically up to the union. If they don't think they have enough support to win a vote, they can collect the signatures from their supporters, then finagle or twist arms to make up the difference.

LV

by: uniondiva

10-17-2008 @ 11:38pm

The employee free choice act puts the power to choose in the workers hands. right now, when workers try to join a union, they often face harassment, intimidation, even being fired. This way, if a majority of workers want a union, they can get it.. without being harassed or threatened. It provides rules that empower workers and evens the playing field when they want to improve their wages and benefits. go to www. iwj.org for more informatio

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2008 @ 1:52am

Uniondiva,

How does a secret ballot vote, administered by the federal government, create harassment or intimidation?

If employers are harassing or firing workers, why not clamp down on harassment or illegal firings?

What does George McGovern get wrong?

LV

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:12am

If thats your only solution then God help us. Better brace yourself for WWIII.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:43am

So what were you watching on Friday night? I saw this.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10172008/prof...

As people of faith what should be our role in seeing that the power struggle between corporations and those that labor for them is a fair one.

Do we want to live in a world where government subsidizes health care for the Wal-marts we consume?

We live in a world where the corporations that we work for can even find a way to read through our mail electronic or otherwise if motivated enough.

In a world where the corporate world can dance circles around our nations unions with their access to technology I don't think that the playing field is very level. This is one place in which the world is not very flat at all.

If we are to be truly helpful to those who struggle for a living wage I think we need to get up to speed and understand with more sophistication the power and brute force that international corporations can wield if tested.

I pray that we will be served by leaders that get that and face it courageously.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 11:29am

http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/

I guess we are not using the right expression. Poor working people prefer being descrifbed as economically distressed workers.

by: jurisnaturalist

10-17-2008 @ 3:07pm

Recommending FDR's labor secretary as a model for future occupants of this position is to recommend either more war (which is what really pulled us out of unemployment) or more unemployment. Unemployment rates were worse after FDR's administration imposed their regulations and price controls, not better. Economic ignorance is widespread.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: jurisnaturalist

10-17-2008 @ 3:07pm

Recommending FDR's labor secretary as a model for future occupants of this position is to recommend either more war (which is what really pulled us out of unemployment) or more unemployment. Unemployment rates were worse after FDR's administration imposed their regulations and price controls, not better. Economic ignorance is widespread.

by: jurisnaturalist

10-17-2008 @ 3:07pm

Recommending FDR's labor secretary as a model for future occupants of this position is to recommend either more war (which is what really pulled us out of unemployment) or more unemployment. Unemployment rates were worse after FDR's administration imposed their regulations and price controls, not better. Economic ignorance is widespread.

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 3:52pm

It is worth noting that Kim Bobo promotes the Employee Free Choice Act, but does not say what it will do.

Please allow me to fill in that little detail. EFCA essentially eliminates secret ballot elections as a means of determining worker support for unions. It substitutes a card-check process in which workers lose their privacy and which is extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Unions have claimed a wide range of abuses by employers in the midst of union organizing drives, but they have never alleged that the National Labor Relations Board has failed to hold the actual elections in a fair way.

EFCA "solves" the unions' problems by eliminating one of the few things in labor law that works right. This is a lousy idea that Christians, who uphold the dignity of working men and women, ought to oppose.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 3:52pm

It is worth noting that Kim Bobo promotes the Employee Free Choice Act, but does not say what it will do.

Please allow me to fill in that little detail. EFCA essentially eliminates secret ballot elections as a means of determining worker support for unions. It substitutes a card-check process in which workers lose their privacy and which is extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Unions have claimed a wide range of abuses by employers in the midst of union organizing drives, but they have never alleged that the National Labor Relations Board has failed to hold the actual elections in a fair way.

EFCA "solves" the unions' problems by eliminating one of the few things in labor law that works right. This is a lousy idea that Christians, who uphold the dignity of working men and women, ought to oppose.

LV

by: captainplanet

10-17-2008 @ 3:59pm

I agree that we should allow workers to organize if they so choose. However, not allowing them to vote by secret ballot just makes no sense to me.

by: captainplanet

10-17-2008 @ 3:59pm

I agree that we should allow workers to organize if they so choose. However, not allowing them to vote by secret ballot just makes no sense to me.

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:33pm

LV-
Can you elaborate on your statement that the EFCA "essentially eliminates secret ballot elections"? I was under the assumption that there still would be the secret ballot option. Also, what is the card-check process? I apologize for being so uninformed.
Thanks

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:33pm

LV-
Can you elaborate on your statement that the EFCA "essentially eliminates secret ballot elections"? I was under the assumption that there still would be the secret ballot option. Also, what is the card-check process? I apologize for being so uninformed.
Thanks

by: paradoxtor

10-17-2008 @ 8:42pm

The secret ballot option is the "unions option", not the workers. Anyone who thinks only empoyers use intimidation is either naive or has never worked in a union environment. My experience as a worker in a union shop was that I had two bosses instead of one. As a member of management I will remember the union reps reply when I told him I wanted to do what the employees wanted about an issue and was told it didn't matter what they wanted, it only mattered what the "union" wanted.
This labor issue is in my opinion the absolute weakest issue on this website in terms of trying to portray it as a justice issue. No doubt there are abusive employers, but the issue of labor and management is much more complex than to simply toss out accusations of "wage theft" which mostly depend on a point of view rather than legal definition or arguably even moral definition.
I have yet to hear an explanation of how a secret ballot allows the employer to intimidate the employee. That the union can intimidate an employee in a non-secret ballot situation is without question.

by: paradoxtor

10-17-2008 @ 8:42pm

The secret ballot option is the "unions option", not the workers. Anyone who thinks only empoyers use intimidation is either naive or has never worked in a union environment. My experience as a worker in a union shop was that I had two bosses instead of one. As a member of management I will remember the union reps reply when I told him I wanted to do what the employees wanted about an issue and was told it didn't matter what they wanted, it only mattered what the "union" wanted.
This labor issue is in my opinion the absolute weakest issue on this website in terms of trying to portray it as a justice issue. No doubt there are abusive employers, but the issue of labor and management is much more complex than to simply toss out accusations of "wage theft" which mostly depend on a point of view rather than legal definition or arguably even moral definition.
I have yet to hear an explanation of how a secret ballot allows the employer to intimidate the employee. That the union can intimidate an employee in a non-secret ballot situation is without question.

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:50pm

Thanks for that perspective, paradoxtor.
I have little experience with unions, so I have a hard time making a sound judgment on whether they are good for workers or not.
Of course, you always hear the rhetoric from the Democrats: "we will create American jobs; strong, union jobs." As if that is the ideal. But I have heard from friends that the unions are not so strong for our country. They can tend undermine the employer's ability to demand productivity, or even a full day's work, from their employees.
But again, I have very limited knowledge of the unions and how they work, so I appreciate any insights, or links to unbiased websites.

by: milesperhour

10-17-2008 @ 8:50pm

Thanks for that perspective, paradoxtor.
I have little experience with unions, so I have a hard time making a sound judgment on whether they are good for workers or not.
Of course, you always hear the rhetoric from the Democrats: "we will create American jobs; strong, union jobs." As if that is the ideal. But I have heard from friends that the unions are not so strong for our country. They can tend undermine the employer's ability to demand productivity, or even a full day's work, from their employees.
But again, I have very limited knowledge of the unions and how they work, so I appreciate any insights, or links to unbiased websites.

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 9:37pm

Paradoxtor has it basically right. This is a really backward idea and even a pro-union liberal like George McGovern sees problems with it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222...

In card-check, a union collects signatures from workers and when they have a majority signed up, they must be recognized. The decision to sign or not cannot be kept private -- union officials collect the cards themselves -- and there's no neutral observer to make sure that cards aren't signed under intimidation or fakery.

A secret ballot vote is still possible, but it's basically up to the union. If they don't think they have enough support to win a vote, they can collect the signatures from their supporters, then finagle or twist arms to make up the difference.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-17-2008 @ 9:37pm

Paradoxtor has it basically right. This is a really backward idea and even a pro-union liberal like George McGovern sees problems with it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222...

In card-check, a union collects signatures from workers and when they have a majority signed up, they must be recognized. The decision to sign or not cannot be kept private -- union officials collect the cards themselves -- and there's no neutral observer to make sure that cards aren't signed under intimidation or fakery.

A secret ballot vote is still possible, but it's basically up to the union. If they don't think they have enough support to win a vote, they can collect the signatures from their supporters, then finagle or twist arms to make up the difference.

LV

by: uniondiva

10-17-2008 @ 11:38pm

The employee free choice act puts the power to choose in the workers hands. right now, when workers try to join a union, they often face harassment, intimidation, even being fired. This way, if a majority of workers want a union, they can get it.. without being harassed or threatened. It provides rules that empower workers and evens the playing field when they want to improve their wages and benefits. go to www. iwj.org for more informatio

by: uniondiva

10-17-2008 @ 11:38pm

The employee free choice act puts the power to choose in the workers hands. right now, when workers try to join a union, they often face harassment, intimidation, even being fired. This way, if a majority of workers want a union, they can get it.. without being harassed or threatened. It provides rules that empower workers and evens the playing field when they want to improve their wages and benefits. go to www. iwj.org for more informatio

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2008 @ 1:52am

Uniondiva,

How does a secret ballot vote, administered by the federal government, create harassment or intimidation?

If employers are harassing or firing workers, why not clamp down on harassment or illegal firings?

What does George McGovern get wrong?

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2008 @ 1:52am

Uniondiva,

How does a secret ballot vote, administered by the federal government, create harassment or intimidation?

If employers are harassing or firing workers, why not clamp down on harassment or illegal firings?

What does George McGovern get wrong?

LV

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:12am

If thats your only solution then God help us. Better brace yourself for WWIII.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:12am

If thats your only solution then God help us. Better brace yourself for WWIII.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:43am

So what were you watching on Friday night? I saw this.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10172008/prof...

As people of faith what should be our role in seeing that the power struggle between corporations and those that labor for them is a fair one.

Do we want to live in a world where government subsidizes health care for the Wal-marts we consume?

We live in a world where the corporations that we work for can even find a way to read through our mail electronic or otherwise if motivated enough.

In a world where the corporate world can dance circles around our nations unions with their access to technology I don't think that the playing field is very level. This is one place in which the world is not very flat at all.

If we are to be truly helpful to those who struggle for a living wage I think we need to get up to speed and understand with more sophistication the power and brute force that international corporations can wield if tested.

I pray that we will be served by leaders that get that and face it courageously.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 10:43am

So what were you watching on Friday night? I saw this.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10172008/prof...

As people of faith what should be our role in seeing that the power struggle between corporations and those that labor for them is a fair one.

Do we want to live in a world where government subsidizes health care for the Wal-marts we consume?

We live in a world where the corporations that we work for can even find a way to read through our mail electronic or otherwise if motivated enough.

In a world where the corporate world can dance circles around our nations unions with their access to technology I don't think that the playing field is very level. This is one place in which the world is not very flat at all.

If we are to be truly helpful to those who struggle for a living wage I think we need to get up to speed and understand with more sophistication the power and brute force that international corporations can wield if tested.

I pray that we will be served by leaders that get that and face it courageously.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 11:29am

http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/

I guess we are not using the right expression. Poor working people prefer being descrifbed as economically distressed workers.

by: mscynthia

10-18-2008 @ 11:29am

http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/

I guess we are not using the right expression. Poor working people prefer being descrifbed as economically distressed workers.

by: jurisnaturalist

10-19-2008 @ 11:43am

mscynthia,
Is it the size of some corporations which makes them threatening, or is it the perversion of the law made vulnerable to arbitrary influence which creates the incentive for corporations to exert influence.
I'd argue the latter and that until we eliminate privilege in law, corporations can't help but seek out every advantage as they compete with one another, forcing prices down, to the consumer's benefit.
The problem is with government, the solution is in less of it.
Nathanael Snow

by: jurisnaturalist

10-19-2008 @ 11:43am

mscynthia,
Is it the size of some corporations which makes them threatening, or is it the perversion of the law made vulnerable to arbitrary influence which creates the incentive for corporations to exert influence.
I'd argue the latter and that until we eliminate privilege in law, corporations can't help but seek out every advantage as they compete with one another, forcing prices down, to the consumer's benefit.
The problem is with government, the solution is in less of it.
Nathanael Snow

by: pawheel

10-20-2008 @ 1:25pm

The Bush administration in a nutshell:

The EPA fights against and won't enforce environmental laws.

The department of Labor is working against worker privacy.

The Department of Defense now invades countries it chooses.

by: pawheel

10-20-2008 @ 1:25pm

The Bush administration in a nutshell:

The EPA fights against and won't enforce environmental laws.

The department of Labor is working against worker privacy.

The Department of Defense now invades countries it chooses.