To every thing there is a season, the Good Book says, and in Michigan workplaces the season of freedom is arriving at last.
Republican legislators voted Tuesday to make Michigan the 24th state in the nation to protect an essential civil liberty: the right to work for a living without being required to join or pay money to a labor union. Governor Rick Snyder signed the new laws — one dealing with private-sector employees, one covering government employment — a few hours later, hailing them as “pro-worker and pro-Michigan.”
Comments
Are you a union member Jeff?
I agree Jeff but if one is not a union member they are on their own in terms of negotiating with an employer. They have not paid for a knowledgeable workforce representative to bargain. It's like the story of the little red hen. No one wants to help make the bread but are quite willing to eat it after the toil has gone into making it happen.
@OETKB So what's the big deal? Why is everybody so up in arms agains this article (and the law)? Nobody's voting against unions!
They're alive and well and not being banned. It looks like all the defenders of the unions assume that given the choice most of the union members will stop paying their dues? And why would they do that if ( as obvious from the words of many defenders) unions are critical to the worker well-being.
So then the argument becomes : Unwashed masses don't really understand what they need. BUT, Trust us, we know better what's good for you. We'll fight for you, just give us your money and don't worry.
I've seen how that works. Organizing society on assumption of incompetence of the people being governed is a sure way to tyrany.
Geek: The problem is the "unwashed masses" do not have the same power to negotiate for decent wages that individuals do. People should have the right to join or not join a union but they have no right to the work product of better wages or work conditions. Non union members would be on their own to try and coax livable wages. The "right to work states" have the highest poverty rates and the lowest median household income. The so called free market has still not figured out on its own how to pay people in a broad sense to allow a decent livlihood for a large swath of the population. We are behind most industrialized countries in that regard.
Jacoby claims freedom from unions makes growth possible and yet he ignores the poverty that is highest in southern right to work states or the substandard education in those states that outlaw collective bargaining for teachers. And yet the Boston Globe continues to give him a platform to lie. Looks like the old saying Up South to Boston now refers to the Boston Globe.
No unions? Not that I love unions, but do you really trust businesses and mayors and governors - people driven by money and politics - to do the right thing by employees? An interesting follow-up column would show the wage differences between right to work states and union states? Also, who is funding and organizing the right to work efforts...not the smaller supporters but the top five funders or so. My understanding is that the Koch brothers are behind much of this, but I don't pretend to really know...Jeff - you have better resources to look into these two areas. Cheers!
Mayors and governors are supposed to represent all the people - not be held hostage to union political pressure that promises them votes in exchange for sweetheart deals. That's the problem with public sector unions - the people paying the bills (taxpayers) don't have a seat at the bargaining table.
@SAT
"Mayors and governors are supposed to represent all the people - not be held hostage to union political pressure that promises them votes in exchange for sweetheart deals. That's the problem with public sector unions - the people paying the bills (taxpayers) don't have a seat at the bargaining table."
Except, they do, you just said it, the elected officials, mayors and governors, THEY represent the people. If they aren't, maybe you should wise up and elect different people
It is all about freedom, versus compulsion. No one who supports "right to work" is anti union. They are against forcing people to pay for a union membership they may not want or need. The reason the unions are having such a tantrum over this is because it will threaten their political power, by reducing the dues they collect.
As this unfolds keep an eye on the coverage. There will be violence and mayhem, but the media will still be sympathetic to the pinky ringed thugs, and continue to suggest that the Tea Party is extreme and dangerous.
I partially agree with what you say, but keep in mind the union fights far better for a worker's wages than a single employee ever could. With the fall of unions we've watched the middle class and lower class wages slowly drift down, while at the same time corporate profits hit all time highs and CEOs and managers make record paychecks. There's no coincidence there. The businesses love "right-to-work" because it leads to lower labor wages. And they've convinced the average working man that somehow this is better for him. Sadly, it's not.
Well Jeff how about we start a movement for freedom from corporations. After all what are corporations except a group of people organized together to create a "profitable" business for themselves. An organization in which the power and wealth of the group enables it to create a bubble of security for the individual investor, allows it as a "legal" instrument to protect the individual investors from other large scale organizations.
But that's different you say. These folks are free to leave or stay. No one coerces them to be a "stock holder". What is a union member except a "stock holder" in the actions of the union. You don't in fact oppose unions becauae of "freedom". You oppose them because they represent in your world, "the unruly masses" exhibiting power in the market place. You have convinced large portions of the public that the organization, the very "capitalistic" organization that built and created the middle class somehow sits at the fulcrum of all of businesses poor decicsions.
You know what though Jeff? I don't blame you or big business over the unions decline. I blame a spoiled public, a public with no memory. A generation that has squandered the efforts of their forefathers, a generation that thinks to highly of itself and not enough about the power of the average man. We know the result of "right to work" laws, lower wages, poor benefits, poor working conditions. Until the public wakes up to this fleecing of the working class they deserve what they get.
Agreed, the public...the regular working people...of this country need to wake up to the fleecing, gaming, and corruption of the system for profit. Our democracy is dying. But one thing I have learned is that a true democracy absolutely requires access to education: truthful, objective, high quality education. The public has been disinformed and deliberally dumbed-down for generations through a very strategic campaign of covert propaganda. All these tactics like corporate front groups ("think tanks"), the buying of journalism, attacks and defunding of education, the co-opting of education, and so on have systematically brainwashed people. We need to educate each other and band together. I get upset at the passivity of too many Americans, but I also see how it happened. Read "The Republican Noise Machine" and "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda vs. Freedom and Liberty. Oh, another good one is "The Unconscious Civilization."
More drivel. Right to work is right to low wage jobs, right to no benefits, right to families working two and three jobs, right to benefit from union negotiations at no expense to yourself. What republicans couldn't win at the ballot box, they will steal through subterfuge. Don't be fooled. Let this be the last gasp of a bankrupt philosophy. They will never learn.
I'd suggest that compulsory unionism is the bankrupt philosophy. And by the way, the Republicans did win at the ballot box. That's why they were able to pass the law.
It wouldn't help Mr. Jacoby’s argument if he had included any historical references to the rise of unions in the U.S., or their benefit to workers, especially as to their safety and welfare. Most unions train their members in their particular skills and crafts and will certify them to a certain standard. Liberty is a concept that is practiced in the absolute only in theory. All personal liberties entail the relinquishment of some freedom—to allow for the other’s exercise of the same liberties. What about state licensing, Mr. Jacoby? Why do I need to “join” the commonwealth’s ranks of plumbers by paying an annual fee to the Massachusetts Board of Registration? Am I not free, with my wrench and plunger, to unclog your toilet without anyone’s permission or oversight except yours?
Right on, dear sir.
The only comfort in your being happy about union-breaking that I take is that, eventually, when we have another Triangle fire, you'll know how stupid you all have behaved on the right by giving the rich back all the tools they used to have to enslave us.
Then again, I won't hold my breath.
asseedan, you mean because MI became a right to work state, giving workers a choice, we are throwing out fire codes, OSHA and the Labor Board? Wow, I missed this somehow -or- your exaggerating.
It seems like the team of conservative columnists who work for the Globe have a compulsion to repetitively expose their inadequacies and set themselves up as dartboards. To invoke the single word of freedom as being the justification for the legislation shows a level of conceptual clarity that would be found in a middle school essay. For a far more nuanced appraisal of the cost of this strategy which is saturated with personal experience and compassion for the people who will loose out, take time to read this.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/right_to_work_bill_michigan_just_gives_up/
INdeed, sometimes I wonder if the Globe hires these incompetent rightwing bloggers (Jacoby, et al.) and polemicists (Sununu, et al.) in a half-hearted attempt to appear balanced. Their liberal columnists are far, far better at their craft.
Unions were created because unfettered management abused the workers. Underpaid, poor and dangerous working conditions were standard, benefits non-existent. Obviously each individual worker is powerless against the business he works for. He can take what's offered or leave. Management can almost always find someone to do the job for less. The result is lower wages etc.
It' interesting because I feel the overall quality of the Globe has been deteriorating (ie..Jeff Jacoby) The breadth is no longer there and while some articles have depth ( the immigration series currently being explored, for example) they're fewer and farther between. I sort of blame the Times Corporation for this .
Great comments here this morning. Read the Salon article below posted by djm71. The state of Michigan is now experiencing a major downgrade. Big brain-drain, vanishing middle class and what's left isn't pretty. Unless you want a job picking chicken feathers for a penny per feather.
By all means, read the article. It describes the current state of the state, and it's not pretty. But the current economic malaise has materialized while Michigan was one of the most highly unionized states in the country. Now let's see how they do as a right to work state. It's worked pretty well for Indiana.
The problem with the unions is they have too much power. The Boston firefighters wanted so much extra money for drug testing that it had to be abandoned...and look at the Hostess union...think all those people wanted to lose their jobs because the union dug in? No, because some tried to defy the union and go back to work. The theory is good, the practice less so...also, not all unions allow all qualified workers to join...
Hostess went down after years and years of financial problems. Nobody eats their crap anymore. The unions were a convenience scapegoat. Do the research.
The Boston Police department falsify their time sheets and collect salaries for days they DO NOT WORK. It is call,'theft' from their employer_which is the City of Boston.
However, the Boston Police Union PROTECTS the skum bags. That is one very good reason that unions are getting a black eye.
The fiasco that is happening with Massachusetts State employees _ as in total incompetence to perform their duties, according to the required job qualifications. That is another very good reason that unions are getting a black eye.
Unions haven't become so scorned without some very good reasons.
Jeff jacoby is a lying tool and a chickenhawk punk. Always has been anD always will
Another moronic comment from h11.
Ah, yes, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the "market-oriented think tank." Jeff, I think you mean, "wealthy special interest-funded front group." I see Jeff Jacoby listed as an auther on the Mackinace website: http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/bio.aspx?ID=86&count=100&type=blog. According to Wiki, "The Mackinac Center conducts policy research on a broad range of public policy issues. Its commentaries frequently appear in Michigan newspapers, and its policy staff are often guests on radio and television news programs around the state. It also conducts educational programs such as workshops for high school debate students..." This "think tank" has been incredibly successful in publishing its views in media, like the Boston Globe apparently. What are Jacoby's ties to this group? When an extremely well-funded front group provides research papers for high school students' debates, that's even more disturbing. I just commented on the infiltration of education by this free market fundamentalism that is so corrupting. So, in whose interest does Mackinac serve? Who profits from the messaging they push into the media and into high schools? They try very hard to shield the identities of their donors. Why is that? They say because revealing them would be a "big diversion." I'll bet, especially since the network of front groups and funding ties them to the usual suspects: The Koch brothers (gas and oil, esp. pipelines and refineries), the Bradely Foundation (super supporters of laissez-faire capitalism http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation, the Lambe Foundation, etc. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy, etc.
Mackinac is tied to the Franklin Center, which (get this!) PAYS investigative journalists to write to advance the "free" market.
Mackinac is also tied to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange) a "dating service" between wealthy interests, their corporations, and state legislators. ALEC tries to (and succeeds at) writing state legislation to increase the profits of the wealthy interests who fund it.
Can we just say it? Can we just say this anti-union journalism is covert propaganda, paid for by wealthy special interests who profit from destroying unions? Can we just say what it is: an attack on working people, and the corruption of democracy? Can we say that it is wrong and should be illegal, or at least can we require that all secret financial interest be fully disclosed?
And Dragon, how would you feel about pro-union journalism?
"Mackinac is tied to the Franklin Center, which (get this!) pays investigative journalists to write to advance the 'free' market."
Amazing! Astounding! Investigative jounalists are actually paid to write articles. I think you've missed your calling, Dragon. With discoveries like this, maybe you should be an investigative journalist.
incredible1, it's about WHO pays investigative journalists and where that money comes from, for what message, and why. It's about secret financial interest and covert propaganda. But you know that. It's also about paid sockpuppets (which extends to paid online commenters).
Is this guy for real? I stopped reading my local paper because of tools like this. I'm astonished the Globe employs him. His lack of knowledge in this area is stunning. If you don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up.
"If you don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up."
Perhaps, Miss Dee, to avoid further embarrassment, you should follow your own advice.
Miss Dee R:
You contribution here is could best be described as "ad hominem". (Yes, look the term up, its in the dictionary).
You dont make much of an intellectual contribution to the conversation, but perhaps you haven't much to work with...
Michigan did the right. If workers love their unions and want to protect their benefits then there should be no decrease in union membership and fees collected. The fear of decrease benefits under the law would ensure that fees and union membership would only increase and not decrease.
Another sign that the Koch brothers, their allies and their media sycophants and lap dogs (Jacoby) are leading the ignorant and intellectually lazy in a race to the bottom. Unfortunately our cultural memory here in this country appears to be afflicted with Alzheimers Disease. Those who have forgotten, or haven't yet learned what organized labor helped achieve in our country ought to be chained to a chair and forced to watch "The Men Who Built America." Only then can one appreciate the delicate balance between entrepreneurial capitalism and the rights and safety of individuals whose blood, sweat and tears allow them to achieve their great wealth in the first place.
Recent reports indicate that our children here in Mass are exceling in Math and Science. Now if they would only add Mandarin to the curriculum, that way they'd be assured of a future career competing with their brethren worker/slaves in China. That appears to be where we are headed if this anti-organized labor movement goes unchecked.
Choice is a good thing, so we've been told.
But nobody's denying the role unions played in helping workers over the years. And if they still are useful - great. When advantages are obvious people wouldn't hesitate to join. It's just that in the free country joining or not should be your personal choice, not the condition of employment. And believe me, I know what mandatory union membership is. Socialist Russia had it in spades.
I agree in principal that workers should have the right to decide whether they will join a union. But these things have a way of turning full circle. Watch the corporate abuses and coercion that results after unions are busted, and lo and behold, you will see the rise of unions once again.
Unions have helped to give us a 40-hour work week, vacation pay, an end to child labor and much more. They came about because workers were overworked, underpaid and mercilessly exploited by robber-baron "titans" of industry. Now as unions decline, workers struggle just to find jobs -- while corporate profits soar in a largely jobless recovery. You call this progress? It is only progress for the wealthy, corporate exploiters.
Unions aren't the problem, Jeff. Unfettered corporate greed is. Reign in the corporations and restrict their lobbying power, end the corporte welfare giveaways to "job creators," and you will see this country thrive once again.
btw, I hope they pay you well for your propaganda. It is typical right-wing nonsense.
Why do you claim that unions will "be busted?" Not true. The unions ought to be able to function on membership dues. Some unions charge as much as $35 to $50 dollars a month!!!!
$50 a month! All you get back is increased wages, defined benefit pension, the best health care, back up in the workplace,safety, working conditions, training, maybe an annuity plan. I have been a dues payer for over forty years and its the best investment I've ever made. Your grasp of the situation is abysmal.
How about freedom from paid shills?
Democrat politicians have benefited for many years due to the enormous amount of money raised from mandatory union dues. The Unions have been acting as PACs, bundling money for the Dems.
But now Republicans have a level playing field since PACs were legalized for all political parties, and the DEMS don't like it. Nor do the Union leaders who will have to reassess their huge salaries.
Any honest person would have to say it's corporate management that wins the prize for both huge salaries and political influence peddling.
The Massachusetts State Police endorsed Scott Brown.
The best I can say about Jacoby is he writes like someone who was born last week.
This is the way things should work. Back when there were the robber barons there was a need to have unionized labor to fight the abuses that were taking place. Now the pendulum has swung the other way where unions have too much power so people are getting turned off to them and their ways of doing business. It's interesting that this is happening in Michigan where the auto workers union went way too far and have left the auto industry decimated in that state. If unions start to lose too much power you'll have businesses abusing workers again and the pendulum will swing back the other way. For things to work optimally there needs to be balance but that's difficult to achieve with the lust for power and greed existing on both sides.
It isn't a pendulum. It's two opposing forces that run at optimum efficiency when in equilibrium. Since the mid-1970s, economic inequality has gradually increased to historic proportions because corporations have significant leverage over the vast majority of workers. The reduction in union membership has only made this problem worse.
Unions are at their weakest point in a century, yet you believe they are the source of our economic problems? Workers pushing for adequate healthcare coverage or pay that keeps up with inflation are the problem? In a world where pleasing the investors by eaking out short term profits is the norm, unions are necessary to ensure that people are treated right. If the goal is to make sure as many people as possible can live comfortably while allowing those with initiative and ambition to rise to the top, then unions have an important role to play.
You've GOT to be kidding! You really are ignorant if you think corporations have less power than unions. If you don't think that corporations abuse their employees, you're probably not acquainted with the workplace. Or with work, for that matter.
This comment has been removed.
Yes, lets give more power to corporations. Because their legacy has been so plentiful to the average American. I mean, who needs child labor laws, minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, employee health care, 5 day work weeks, civil rights in the workplace, women suffrage rights, retirement...all fought for by unions and all fought against by the corporate elite during their time.
If you ever did your homework beyond the confines of the Heritage Club playbook, you would find that salaries for CEOS and shareholders are the only ones that actually have gone up in the last ten years. Unions have been dinosaurs and it will be very soon when ideologues like yourself will have to scapegoat somewhere else when failed robber-baron corporate policies pour more havoc on the American worker.
LogicRules1: "Yes, lets give more power to corporations."
Yikes, it is hard to get past this initial statement! Giving individuals a choice about paying union dues somehow represents more power to corporations? Not so. It does mean more power to the worker, and less power to the union, true. But no power to corporations UNLESS AND EXCEPT when the interests of some workers happen to coincide with those of some corporations, where the power of the workers could serve to benefit the corporation.
But it is still the workers choice and thus their power, only.
I think some classwarfare solcialism is speaking in your comments.
LifeLibertyPOH --
"classwarfare solcialism," I'm not sure what to make of this comment, but make have no doubt the class war is on, and ordinary people are losing.
Michigan is in awful shape - seen Detroit lately? And why? Big, ridiculous union contracts. The scare tactics of child labor, lower wages, etc. are liberal scare tactics. Do research on wage growth and jobs in RTW states vs non-RTW ones. What do you find?
This comment has been removed.
According to Michigan's Mackinac Center, using data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011 compared with just 3% over the same period in forced-unionization states.
These good wages came from good jobs. Employment in right-to-work states expanded 2.4% over the same stretch vs. a 3.4% decline in non-right-to-work states. Ironically, Obama is taking credit for jobs created in RTW states.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121112-636665-right-to-work-means-better-wages.htm#ixzz2ErklamHg
For once I agree with Jeff Jacoby.
Why? You don't like workers, either?
How can anyone oppose something called "right to work"? What's the alternative: right to not work? No right to work?
Because "right to work" is a rhetorical political phrase, it doesn't mean what it says. Republicans are very good with coming up with such flourishes.
No one in this country has a "right to work." You only have a right to apply for work and hope someone hires you. The only difference at a union shop is that you pay union dues once you get the job, but anyone that the company wants to hire can get the job. Union dues do not keep people from working. That's a bunch of BS.
Unions are small democracies, with all the good and bad that goes with it. That's the American tradition, isn't it? A company becomes unionized by a vote of the employees and the majority prevails. Isn't that an American tradition? When a law passes Congress don't we all have to abide by it, like it or not?
Businesses don't like unions because they don't want to have to deal with the collective power of their employees. They'd rather divide and conquer. Businesses are the antithesis of democracy.
This comment has been removed.
PULEEZE! This article's almost unreadable.
This comment has been removed.
Jacoby's real view is expressed in the headline: "Freedom from unions." He doesn't go quite that far in the article, but that's what he really wants. No unions at all.
This comment has been removed.
Who could be against "free food" for the starving. What's the alternative starvation. Ad absurdum is not an argument as a recent SC Justice proved. It would actually mean something if "right to works" purpose was to bring the right to unioinize or not to the workplace. The fact is however the purpose is to strangle the unions. But hey if the majority of American's are for lower wages, corporate power then I'll support them even if I disagree. I do love to watch people rob themselves.
You gotta love the small govt. folks. They like their big govt. when it imposes their views on others just like the folks on the left, except the right and the libertarians love to couch it in the word "freedom". I can see the next round of political ads in midority communities.
"Don't let the Democrats use you. You're "free" not to vote. The real "freedom" not voting."
My old party has lost its mind and will end up being an historical footnote if this nonsense doesn't stop. I've lost all hope they will send the "libertarians" and the "religious right" back to the woods where they belong.
Sometimes I can't decide whether Jacoby is just a mouthpiece for Fake News or a shill for knee-jerk rightwing extremism, and this harangue is a case in point. Why does Jacoby (or any rational being, for that matter) propogate a disengenuous (actually dishonest), misnaming of an anti-union, i.e., union-busting, piece of legislation as protecting the "right to work?"
The larger question, irrespective of Jacoby's rants, is: why does the rightwing continue to marginalize and hammer away at the poor and the middle class? What this legislation will do is take away protections that American workers need; without the unions, the sad facts are that our workers would be living in virtual squalor. It has no other purpose than to enrich the corporate pooh-bahs.
So a lot of name-calling should contribute what?
The 90% of American public sector workers who work without union protections certainly give the silly statement about their "living in squalor...".
It is a far cry from "manufacturing unions" and public unions. Should we compare apples and oranges while we're at it. do you realize federal workers can't even negotiate wages, in fact most state workers can't either. So if you have a problem with their income levels I'd suggest taking it up with the governor or the Congress.
Maybe this could be presented as "right for job providers to hire whomever they want, because it's their business". Which at least private sector "working people" (Democrat created image having nothing to do necessarily with unions) should prefer to the present "right for job providers to move jobs 'right to work states' or to other countries". This would be more of a concern if "working people' didn't get to suck up unemployment benefits for months, basically being on welfare.
The fallacy in "because it's their business" is that it's not "their" business. The owners (stockholders) of major businesses have very little control over management, which is basically self-perpetuating. In addition, businesses ask society to provide them with a number of privileges, such as limited liability, trademark protection, patent protection, etc. Ownership itself and the entire corporate structure is a legal creation of the society. There is no ownership without government. With each gift from society comes an IOU -- something that becomes conveniently forgotten by those who like to fantasize that they're self-sufficient and owe nothing to anyone.
So "Barbara" your argument is that the working stiffs are purely a resource, like steel or wood or any other resource. They unlike the investor or the businessman have no right to protect their own interests. You seem to give them no value whatsoever outside of what they can produce for the businessman. Isn't it that kind of thinking that led Marx to promote the ideas that shook capitalism to its roots. Is that really what you want the future to look like. A future in which a real live proletariat rises up in anger at the excesses of "capitalism". Frankly to my knowledge it has long been a "conservative" position to amerliorate the excesses of captialism. You seem to be promoting the concept of "take the folks for as much as you can."
I won't even go to the coporations that "suck up" federal benefits.
Hey Jeff, the right of unions to collect dues from non-members under their jurisdiction is the same thing as the government's right to collect taxes regardless of whether you believe in the government or not. You work and live here and get services, so even is you say you don't want them you still have to pay taxes. Explain how this is any different from union dues.
rwc2,
So if your propisition is a worker is to a union as a citizen is to the country..well you might win the resulting argument, execpt your proposition is so absurd.
All become citizens the day we are born, no choice required nor offerred.
The question being argued, is whether you become a union member the day you get a job, or whether you should have a choice in that. Since my handle is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you cna bet that mandatory union membership represents infringing our freedoms.
LifeLiberty & whatever -- You have all the freedom in the world to work a non-union job. There are a lot more non-union job than unionized ones. That's your freedom.
Public service unions aside, freedom should also guarantee two non-government entities, a private business and a union, to draw up an agreement between themselves that requires employees to pay union dues.
I would bank on the fact that you support private enterprise in most every way, unless it interferes with your things you like to hate. No compromising with the hatred, is there?
Jacoby, maybe in a future piece, you could write why Republicans won't go after police unions? I'd love to be entertained at how you wiggle and squirm your way through why they don't.
The truth behind Republican support for this one union is because the police, with the power to arrest and control the populace, would be marching with all the other union workers and middleclassmen that Republicans are out to destroy. And like any oppressive philosphy, Republicans are simply buying off the powers that can suppress: the Police.
Republicans truly are a disgrace.
I agree that's it's a big mistake to exempt police and fire unions from new laws restricting collective bargaining in the public sector, especially since, at least in Massachusetts, they are the most egregious abusers of the taxpayers.
Jeff Jacoby supports CEO's like Mike Duke of Wal-Mart. Mike Duke and Wal -Mart pay poverty wages, where thier workers must rely on food-stamps and other gov't assistance like Medicaid to live.
Then these incredibly evil people like Jacoby and CEO Mike Duke and the rest of the republican party of selfish haters, spit on the working poor.
Mitt Romney did this during the election. And we all know Jeff Jacoby admires people like Mitt, who made hundreds of millions cutting up jobs and offshoring them.
And to put the cherry on the sundae, heartless people like Jeff Jacoby then complain that these poverty level workers don't pay enough taxes. Meanwhile, Jeff's hero, Mitt, after cutting up jobs to pad is wallet, hide his millions offshore so he doesn't have to pay taxes.
And then people like Jeff get on their soapbox and tell us how wonderful and CEO's and corporate America is.
Jeff Jacoby and people like him are the problem with America and why it has grown ill over the past thirty years.
Oh, and I'd like to add. People like Jeff Jacoby get in the trenches and tell us that these poor CEO's like Mike Duke would suffer if taxes return to historical norms. The tragedy of poor Mike Duke.
Meanwhile Mike Duke is making 717 times the salary of the average Wal-Mart worker.
Cry me a river, Jeff.
What a ridiculous comment.
I think that "Right-to-Work" is like NAFTA, some good and some bad. Beware of idealism when businessmen are involved. During the campaign of the first Republican President, Honest Abe, a jingle was used to get votes here in the Midwest. "It's plain as facts and figures, clear as 1 and 1 makes 2; folks who make black slaves of nig*ers, aim to make white slaves of you". Businessmen have always been more interested in profit than in workers living conditions. Recall the terrible fire in the early 1900's in the dress factory in Lower Manhatten? Well, it just reoccurred in the same way in Bangladesh, where our global businesses have found cheaper labor. NAFTA moved manufacturing to Mexico where desperate people work for one tenth of what US workers make and have no benefits. Mexican manufacturers even worry the Chinese now with their lower wages. Employed US workers can now shop at Walmart and afford 5 pair of pants and 5 shirts for every member of the family! The down side of this is that clothes at this price are not manufactured in the US and are not made by US workers. The pendulum does swing. One of the principles of capitalist economics, which Republicans especially worship, is that when the quantity of a commodity is up, then values will be down. Across the globe members of labor are plentiful and increasing; so the wages here in the US are decreasing. Let's be careful what our choices yield.