Elizabeth Warren Defending Workers Rights from the GOP by Norman Markowitz

On international Women's Day it is fitting that we post this article from Senator Elizabeth Warren, in my opinion by far the best potential Democratic candidate for President of the United States, not to mention the first woman who would reach that office, on the question of workers rights.

As the nasty comments  against her by Warren Buffet and other leading finance capitalists have made clear, Warren is the political leader they fear most--someone who if she gained the presidency would not bail them out at taxpayers expense and permit them to continue their "business as usual" policies against labor and the people .  As she requests, join her now and tell the NLRB to do its job

Norman Markowitz

 

 

The Republican Ambush on Worker's Basic Rights

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

08 March 15

 

t every turn, organized labor has been there, fighting on behalf of the American people.

But today, instead of implementing policies that strengthen the middle class, Republicans in Congress are pushing a bill to stop the National Labor Relations Board from modernizing its procedures because it just might help – yes, I said help – America’s workers.

The only way we’ll stop this from happening is by raising our voices as loudly as possible. Join me right now to tell Congress to let the NLRB do its job.

Coming out of the Great Depression, America’s labor unions helped build America’s strong middle class. For half a century, as America’s union membership went up, America’s median family income went up, and that was true for families whether they were part of a union or not.

Since 1935, Congress has required the National Labor Relations Board to oversee the workplace elections in which workers decide whether to be represented by a union. More than 90 percent of the time when there’s an election, it all goes smoothly. Employees and employers agree about the process, and an election is held without dispute. Done.

But, in the remaining cases, the rules on how to resolve these concerns have turned into a mess. Over time, a hodgepodge of different rules for resolving these disputes emerged in each of the country’s 26 NLRB regions.

To fix this, the NLRB recently finalized national rules that set out the procedures for resolving pre-election issues and conducting elections. In other words, the NLRB is trying to make dispute resolution clearer, more efficient and more consistent from region to region. This is good for workers.

Trying to make government work better shouldn’t be controversial. But it is controversial. Why? Because some employers like the broken tangled rules. They have learned that they can game the system and oppose union votes all together. They don’t want the NLRB to work, so they are lobbying against these new rules.

And Congressional Republicans are standing up for them, advancing a proposal to stop the NLRB from implementing its final rules.

We can’t let Congress promote an inefficient system that gives employers room to manipulate the process and block workers from organizing. Join me right now to tell Congress: Let the NLRB do its job.

Republicans claim they’re concerned about workers being able to “ambush” their employers with workplace elections. That’s just plain nonsense.

Let’s be honest – the only ambush here is the Republican ambush on worker’s basic rights.

According to a 2011 study from the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, long election delays correspond with higher rates of labor law violations. A delay gives anti-union employers more time to retaliate against union organizers and to intimidate workers.

So it comes down the question I’ve asked before: who does this Congress work for?

Republicans say government should keep on working for employers who don’t like unions and who have figured out how to exploit a tangled system. They complain about government inefficiencies, but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so that a broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient – even when we know how to fix it.

But we weren’t sent here just to represent employers who don’t like unions. We’re here to support working people who just want a fighting chance to level the playing field.

Join me right now to tell Congress to let the NLRB do its job.


Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • The struggle to save the working people's jobs, conditions of work, and job security is real, it is now.
    It comes up as a concrete question or set of questions, as realities that fly in our faces. As they come up, we must address them, in fact, not in fiction, nor in theory.
    That is the case whether the fact is a policy, person or persons, institution(s) or organization(s).
    So working people can not and will not and have not solved, attacked, confronted problems through "logical" deductions or inductions.
    So, we cannot and will not "reason" that:

    Since; president Obama was emplaced in office by Wall Street (which is untrue strictly speaking, because a cross-section, and majority of voters and workers elected president Obama).

    Then; president Obama cannot be influenced, affected or changed by our actions or inactions. Further, what he does or does not do as chief executive officer of the United States of America, does not concern us.
    The bottom line to such "reasoning" is so "profound" that it is clear that we would do nothing but resign to the whims of "corporations".
    As our friend, "Allen" lectures us below on ills, perils, and certainties of the will of "corporate" Warren(leave out the legal, organizational, and administrational, actions, both legal and political, public policy that challenge these corporations' actions, policies and procedures in a way that threaten the day to day, hour by hour, and minute by minute operations thereof, in favor of the working people).
    This to say nothing of the fact that hundreds of thousands, and ultimately millions of workers have their fates, as workers and unionists, in the balance of the decisions, actions, and initiatives these heads of government- Obama and Warren-at the behest of the multi-national, multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-ethic working people who directly and indirectly put them both in office.
    Moreover, most importantly, Elizabeth Warren's and Barrack Hussein Obama's admonitions and positions end with remedies expressed as direct action- to contact, to write, to call, to visit congress, on behalf of working people to TELL what you demand your government to do.
    With our friend "Allen" we are merely admonished to "know" but not to "do".
    Do those actions which protect you, your unions, your family, the working people and the country, the U S A-and all working people everywhere, by contacting your congresspersons-Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Socialist or Communist (notwithstanding the lies, fantasies, anti-communism, fanaticism and paranoia of especially our right extremists and "leaders")- telling them as Elizabeth Warren does: working people want this country and government fixed, to favor the people who literally built it-we want to be protected by law, policy, and authority by what is in all righteousness our government and not the corporations' government.
    We want the proposed N L R B actions of efficiency and democracy put in place now to protect democracy and democracy in the work place, we want democracy in our country to have a chance to survive-we demand it, now. We want unity with Elizabeth Warren on this.
    Can the "Allens" understand that the working people are not children who argue words and names with "reason", or syllogisms which lead to no direct actions to protect and promote the working people-those who we love?
    A certain word-D E M O C R A C Y-the great Paul Robeson sings-T H A T ' S W H A T A M E R I C A I S T O M E.

    Posted by E.E.W. Clay, 03/10/2015 2:31pm (9 years ago)

  • So it doesn't dawn on these people who were and are "disappointed" by Obama's numerous capitulations to the Wall St. vipers who sponsored Obama that this same guy appointed Warren to the post of Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Do you folks believe that Obama who was vetted by Wall St. would appoint someone to that post who was going to tear down the walls of high finance? What world of total delusion do you inhabit?

    Amazing how pieces like this and statements by Warren to such effect are championed by liberals/progressives to drum up energy for supporting such corporate tools like Warren. If you read Warren's comments closely you'll see it is actually an indictment of her as any sort of "progressive" (whatever that means) and proves her allegiance to corporate rule. She has clearly stated that she "gives deference" to Obama's choices when Obama's choices one after the other have been Wall St. insiders and are always against the working people. And some claim Warren is a populist? She has also highlighted that she has voted against only one of Obama's appointees and somehow this is to be a ringing endorsement for Warren? No it actually shows she is all too happy to kiss the ring of power. Her record proves this for those still paying attention.

    Lastly she has stated that "big banks are important" when in fact these banks are nothing less than criminal enterprises that steal the wealth from working people. All she is interested in are tepid reforms of a thoroughly corrupt system. And this
    is to be lauded by those who wish to jump on the illusory populist bandwagon of Warren?

    In essence this is all vintage Warren and "the good Dems" vs. the "Evil Repubs" as it attempts to give a "progressive" gloss to Democrats, by pretending it's only Republicans that oppose financial reform and somehow if "firebrands" like Warren
    have their way they are going to rein in those predators. Nothing more than Kabuki theater for the ignorant political consumer. Warren herself alludes to the fact that she is quite fine with big business running the show as long as it is "regulated" which we know by now is a big lie.

    The financial system should be nationalized, & organized to serve public need rather than private profit. The capitalist concept of banking for private profit has already proven itself as toxic to the world's economic health and environmental well-being. Wall Street's continued existence is due only to the fact that it owns the entire political system so completely, that in its hour of desperate need in October 2008, both parties raced to fork over trillions of public dollars in a matter of 72 hours. Wall Street is a cancer feeding parasitically on the rest of society: it literally lives by devouring the "healthy tissue" of its host.

    Another point Warren doesn't mention: aside from nationalizing the banks, the ill-gotten wealth of the banksters should be expropriated, & returned to the society they stole it from. And harsh prosecutions are in order for a large number of banksters, with lengthy jail terms meted out, befitting their role as social criminals.

    Warren, Sanders et al are fully vetted members of the One Party system.

    The system in place is only there to represent the wishes of big business. No matter which Democratic or Republican candidate you choose to support, that system is still in place. In fact, before we ever get to vote on any candidates, they are all carefully vetted and approved by the capitalists who developed this system and who run the show. Who out there does not understand this?

    The only difference between the parties on the matter of serious financial reform is that while Republicans automatically oppose all Democratic proposals, the Democrats propose only fake & toothless reform. Each party thus has a different method of protecting Wall St & obstructing serious reform.

    Ask yourself these questions:

    1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)?

    2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy?

    3. Do you believe the Democrats are free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?

    How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when Obama e.g. received more industry campaign cash than his Republican opponents? How can the Democratic Party be the “party of the people” when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.

    Big business likes things just the way they are. They get what they want in Washington at your expense. If you're hoping for change, voting for corporate-funded candidates is not the way. The rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations will prosper while the US Treasury goes bankrupt. Solutions to real problems like never-ending war, a bloated military budget, addiction to oil, global warming, decaying infrastructure, affordable healthcare, declining literacy rates, and a real social safety net cannot happen when government caters to profit-seeking corporations instead of the American people. What we’re left with is truly the best democracy money can buy.

    Posted by Allen, 03/09/2015 10:33am (9 years ago)

  • So it doesn't dawn on these people who were and are "disappointed" by Obama's numerous capitulations to the Wall St. vipers who sponsored Obama that this same guy appointed Warren to the post of Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Do you folks believe that Obama who was vetted by Wall St. would appoint someone to that post who was going to tear down the walls of high finance? What world of total delusion do you inhabit?

    Amazing how pieces like this and statements by Warren to such effect are championed by liberals/progressives to drum up energy for supporting such corporate tools like Warren. If you read Warren's comments closely you'll see it is actually an indictment of her as any sort of "progressive" (whatever that means) and proves her allegiance to corporate rule. She has clearly stated that she "gives deference" to Obama's choices when Obama's choices one after the other have been Wall St. insiders and are always against the working people. And some claim Warren is a populist? She has also highlighted that she has voted against only one of Obama's appointees and somehow this is to be a ringing endorsement for Warren? No it actually shows she is all too happy to kiss the ring of power. Her record proves this for those still paying attention.

    Lastly she has stated that "big banks are important" when in fact these banks are nothing less than criminal enterprises that steal the wealth from working people. All she is interested in are tepid reforms of a thoroughly corrupt system. And this
    is to be lauded by those who wish to jump on the illusory populist bandwagon of Warren?

    In essence this is all vintage Warren and "the good Dems" vs. the "Evil Repubs" as it attempts to give a "progressive" gloss to Democrats, by pretending it's only Republicans that oppose financial reform and somehow if "firebrands" like Warren
    have their way they are going to rein in those predators. Nothing more than Kabuki theater for the ignorant political consumer. Warren herself alludes to the fact that she is quite fine with big business running the show as long as it is "regulated" which we know by now is a big lie.

    The financial system should be nationalized, & organized to serve public need rather than private profit. The capitalist concept of banking for private profit has already proven itself as toxic to the world's economic health and environmental well-being. Wall Street's continued existence is due only to the fact that it owns the entire political system so completely, that in its hour of desperate need in October 2008, both parties raced to fork over trillions of public dollars in a matter of 72 hours. Wall Street is a cancer feeding parasitically on the rest of society: it literally lives by devouring the "healthy tissue" of its host.

    Another point Warren doesn't mention: aside from nationalizing the banks, the ill-gotten wealth of the banksters should be expropriated, & returned to the society they stole it from. And harsh prosecutions are in order for a large number of banksters, with lengthy jail terms meted out, befitting their role as social criminals.

    Warren, Sanders et al are fully vetted members of the One Party system.

    The system in place is only there to represent the wishes of big business. No matter which Democratic or Republican candidate you choose to support, that system is still in place. In fact, before we ever get to vote on any candidates, they are all carefully vetted and approved by the capitalists who developed this system and who run the show. Who out there does not understand this?

    The only difference between the parties on the matter of serious financial reform is that while Republicans automatically oppose all Democratic proposals, the Democrats propose only fake & toothless reform. Each party thus has a different method of protecting Wall St & obstructing serious reform.

    Ask yourself these questions:

    1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)?

    2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy?

    3. Do you believe the Democrats are free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?

    How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when Obama e.g. received more industry campaign cash than his Republican opponents? How can the Democratic Party be the “party of the people” when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.

    Big business likes things just the way they are. They get what they want in Washington at your expense. If you're hoping for change, voting for corporate-funded candidates is not the way. The rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations will prosper while the US Treasury goes bankrupt. Solutions to real problems like never-ending war, a bloated military budget, addiction to oil, global warming, decaying infrastructure, affordable healthcare, declining literacy rates, and a real social safety net cannot happen when government caters to profit-seeking corporations instead of the American people. What we’re left with is truly the best democracy money can buy.

    Posted by , 03/09/2015 10:32am (9 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments