Now the Republicans in the South are going to do the same with their citizens as Trans Pacific Trade Pact allows all US workers be exploited like this.
It may be true that unions went too far with wage and benefit packages ----but this was happening as US corporations earned millions in profit and those wages and benefits allowed US citizens to fuel the US economy with no global corporations needed. So, the idea that unions now have to work hand-in-hand to keep a global corporation WELL-POSITIONED is not acceptable.
Environmental Justice Case Study: Garment Workers www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/jessica.htm
All recent Chinese immigrants, ... “Immigrant Asian Women in Bay Area Garment Sweat Shops: ‘After Sewing, Laundry, Cleaning, and Cooking, ...
As I listen to International unions shout for Made in America I am watching as they embrace the same global corporations coming to the US now that worked for decades exploiting workers and we know the goal of TPP is to bring that to the US. So, can US unions organize the smaller businesses as they do in the garment industry in NYC and LA rather than teaming with a global corporation known to have the intent to exploit in the US?
OF COURSE THEY CAN---UNIONS DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS GLOBAL STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE FOR LABOR. TO DO SO PLACES UNIONS AS A PARTNER TO THIS EXPLOITATION.
Sweden exports sweatshops: Ikea's first American factory
By Cory Doctorow at 10:13 pm Sun, Apr 10, 2011
Ikea have a reputation for being a great employer in Sweden; but in America, their first factory is a model sweatshop, with rock-bottom wages, mandatory overtime, abusive vacation policies, and forced reeducation meetings for employees who support forming a union: Some of the Virginia plant's 335 workers are trying to form a union. The International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said a majority of eligible employees had signed cards expressing interest. In response, the factory -- part of Ikea's manufacturing subsidiary, Swedwood -- hired the law firm Jackson Lewis, which has made its reputation keeping unions out of companies. Workers said Swedwood officials required employees to attend meetings at which management discouraged union membership...
Laborers in Swedwood plants in Sweden produce bookcases and tables similar to those manufactured in Danville. The big difference is that the Europeans enjoy a minimum wage of about $19 an hour and a government-mandated five weeks of paid vacation. Full-time employees in Danville start at $8 an hour with 12 vacation days -- eight of them on dates determined by the company.
What's more, as many as one-third of the workers at the Danville plant have been drawn from local temporary-staffing agencies. These workers receive even lower wages and no benefits, employees said.
Below you see what citizens in Maryland see all the time----policy negotiated behind closed doors between a few people---corporations and politicians or in this case corporations and a union with a deal that had absolutely no union member input and as the article says----no fighting. It is not a coincidence that these deals have ended with union members seeing more and more cuts to their wages and benefits as the goal with international unions is to make global corporation they are tied to more competitive. That is the example I gave yesterday with the UAW. So, union labor has lost all of its gains over decades-----we are losing Federal Medicare and Social Security----public education---public water and transportation all because Clinton neo-liberals work as Republicans to kill the programs the Democratic base depend on---and to make it worse---Clinton neo-liberals are the face of Trans Pacific Trade Pact----the last stage of neo-liberalism that takes the US to third world status. So now, Clinton neo-liberals and these International unions are pretending we are going back to the 1960s labor movement to regain our rights even as they know TPP seeks to allow global corporations like Wilson Sporting Goods work in the US as they do in the developing world---and American workers are becoming more and more angry at unions---THIS IS NOT HOW WE REBUILD THE UNIONS THAT WE NEED IN THE US.
THIS IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL UNIONS MEAN WHEN THEY SAY THEY WANT CORPORATIONS TO BE WELL-POSITIONED.
Steelworkers' contract approval typical of area's good relations
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:42 am
The news that members of United Steelworkers Local 1865 had approved a new 42-month labor agreement covering more than 800 hourly employees at AK Steel’s Ashland Works was so expected it went mostly unnoticed. However, the new agreement is important because it further buries the myth that Ashland and northeast Kentucky are a tough labor region known for prolonged, often ugly and sometimes violent work stoppages.
It has been decades since labor and management at a local company have squared off in a long labor dispute. The last time we can remember a particularly ugly strike in this community was one at the old Semet Solvay plant in Ashland. Of course, that plant later became the AK Steel Coke Plant and was closed and demolished.
For more than 30 years, labor agreements involving local workers have been reached much like the new one at the Ashland Works: Union leaders and plant managers meet quietly for months prior to the end of the existing labor contract in an effort to reach an agreement on a new contract. There are no angry words or threats made. No attempts are made to get the media or other outside interests involved in the negotiations.
More the three-fourth of the jobs at the Ashland Works — which employed for than 4,000 at its peak — have disappeared. In addition, manufacturing firms like the coke plant and tannery in Ashland, Wilson Sporting Goods and Allied Chemical in Ironton and scores of other once-stable plants have closed. The number of manufacturing jobs in this region is a fraction of what it was in 1980. Out of necessity, those changes have helped improve labor-management relations in this region.
While AK Steel’s Ashland Works no longer provides nearly as many jobs as it did in the 1970s, it still is a major employer that provides some of the best-paying jobs in this region. Instead of arguing over how large of pay hikes they will receive or how many paid holidays they will get, those now employed at the Ashland Works are more committed than ever to making a quality product in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. That’s the best way to keep the steelmaker in Ashland providing good jobs for years to come.
The next time someone tries to tell you this region is unable to attract new jobs because of its reputation at a tough labor town, tell them they don’t know what they are talking about. That negative image died years ago.
THIS IS NOT HOW A UNION WORKS. IT IS NOT HOW CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS WORK. WE NEED TO TAKE BACK LEADERSHIP IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS OR IGNORE THEM COMPLETELY. IF INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNIONS ARE GOING TO SUPPORT CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS ----THEY WILL MOVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AWAY FROM UNIONS.
Could you imagine if all of these fight for $15 groups educated that Trans Pacific Trade Pact seeks to allow global corporations to ignore all US labor rights and wages that take from a corporation's profit----like minimum wage laws. If a group is shouting for a good cause like $15 an hour but not getting you out against TRans Pacific Trade Pact----they are not really working for the American worker. EDUCATE ON TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT---IT IS ILLEGAL, AND COUP AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND US CONSTITUTION, AND ANY VOTE FOR TPP WILL BE TREASON AGAINST THE US. This is what these groups need to be shouting.
I never see signs or shouting against TPP at these minimum wage rallies....where they should be.
Here in Baltimore we have great rallies for higher minimum wage and we have absolute silence on TPP. This works against the American people as it gives hope of change while allowing organizing against the real issue---TPP and the pols who support it harder.
Doesn't it seem strange that as Obama and Clinton neo-liberals are working to Fast Track TPP that none of these minimum wage groups mention TPP? The NAACP and Historically Black Colleges never mention TPP even as it has the goal of exploiting and enslaving people of color and women the most. NOW and Emily's List are all about Clinton neo-liberal candidates. Until we turn this around---it is safe to say if any of these groups supports a candidate----we know that candidate will be a Clinton neo-liberal.
Fight for 15 Inspires Bold Demands
April 14, 2015 / Sonia Singh Labor Notes
Fast food and retail workers will be joined on April 15 by childcare workers, adjunct professors, home care workers, airport workers, and students in one-day strikes in 200 cities. Photo: Workers Organizing Committee of Chicago
As thousands of low-wage workers prepare to rally and strike on April 15, demanding $15 an hour and a union, their high-profile mobilization has already inspired workers in a range of industries far beyond fast food.
From school support staff to UPS part-timers, Fight for 15 is raising the confidence of unions to put bold demands on the bargaining table for their own low-wage members—and to back up those demands with community action.
The surge in low-wage worker organizing is also fueling campaigns to boost the minimum wage, spreading the momentum for $15 to new cities, including a wave of action across Canada.
In the 1960s and 70s when the real civil and labor rights movements occurred we had groups like Amnesty International, Green Peace, and Doctors WithOut Borders all operating out of the US and funded by a progressive liberal government structure. Since Reagan Clinton neo-liberalism these International progressive justice organizations have moved out of the US and actually have the US ranked as one of the most unjust nations in the world---tied with nations like Sudan. These larger groups are what create the environment for smaller local progressive organizations to build and grow. When they left the US----the foundation of activism left. Add Clinton's corporatization of our universities and this is why people are silent as we are taken to third world autocracy. As I said---Clinton neo-liberals are now trying to install this individual progressive issue group structure to keep people disconnected and knowledge of public policy tied to slogans and memes!
Below you see what is now a Clinton neo-liberal International Human Rights Organization. It always takes the US neo-liberal stance and never places the US in negative light as regards human rights violations---see how that is the opposite of Amnesty International or Doctors WithOut Borders? This international 'human rights' group is now replacing the progressive platform of the 1960s groups with this neo-liberal platform and we have locally Open Door Society in Baltimore staffed with Johns Hopkins working on justice issues and saying progress is being made when things could not be worse. Progress for Clinton neo-liberals is the opposite of progress for progressive liberals. All of the 'progressive' non-profits in Maryland tied to environment, justice, health care are all created by O'Malley and neo-liberals that are silent on the real public policy education as the worst of policy moves forward.
Americans simply need to be aware of all of this capture and not be overwhelmed by it. All of this can change---easy peasy if we educate everyone on policy, on which groups and pols do good work, and take the leadership positions of these or new non-profits
When the people leading these 'progressive' justice organizations whether at the International, national, or local level are global corporate tribunal/Wall Street people---this filters down to all real progressive justice action.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014 FULL SHOW | HEADLINES |
Debate: Is Human Rights Watch Too Close to U.S. Gov’t to Criticize Its Foreign Policy?
Guests Keane Bhatt, lead organizer of the letter alleging a revolving door between the U.S. government and Human Rights Watch.
Reed Brody, counsel and spokesperson for Human Rights Watch. He worked as lead counsel for the victims in the case of the exiled former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré, and in the cases of Augusto Pinochet and Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier.
Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest and most influential human rights organizations, is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over 100 scholars have written an open letter criticizing what they describe as a revolving door with the U.S. government that impacts HRW’s work in certain countries, including Venezuela. The letter urges HRW to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization’s independence, responding: "We are careful to ensure that prior affiliations do not affect the impartiality of Human Rights Watch’s work. … We routinely expose, document and denounce human rights violations by the US government, including torture, indefinite detention, illegal renditions, unchecked mass surveillance, abusive use of drones, harsh sentencing and racial disparity in criminal justice, and an unfair and ineffective immigration system." We host a debate between HRW counsel Reed Brody and Keane Bhatt, a writer and activist who organized the open letter.
Transcript This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: One of the world’s largest and most influential human rights organizations is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over a hundred scholars have written an open letter to Human Rights Watch criticizing what they describe as the group’s close ties to the U.S. government.
The letter claims there is a revolving door between the U.S. government and Human Rights Watch and that it has impacted the organization’s work in certain countries, including Venezuela. It cites the example of Tom Malinowski. In the 1990s he served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and as a speechwriter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Then he became HRW’s Washington advocacy director. Then, last year, he left the organization after being nominated as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under John Kerry. The letter also notes a former CIA analyst named Miguel Díaz who sat on a Human Right Watch advisory committee from 2003 to 2011. Díaz is now at the State Department. The letter urges Human Rights Watch to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members.
AMY GOODMAN: Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization’s independence. In a recent letter to the Nobel laureates, Roth wrote, quote, "We are careful to ensure that prior affiliations do not affect the impartiality of Human Rights Watch’s work."
Roth went on to highlight the group’s history of criticizing the U.S. human rights record. Roth wrote, quote, "We routinely expose, document and denounce human rights violations by the US government, including torture, indefinite detention, illegal renditions, unchecked mass surveillance, abusive use of drones, harsh sentencing and racial disparity in criminal justice, and an unfair and ineffective immigration system."
Criticism of Human Rights Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected. The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been criticized by national governments, other NGOs, the media and its founder (and former chairman), Robert L. Bernstein. Criticism falls into one of two general categories: poor research or inaccurate reporting and (more commonly) bias. Bias allegations include the organization's being influenced by United States government policy, particularly in relation to reporting on Latin America; ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe, or being anti-Semitic itself; the Arab–Israeli conflict; and the misrepresentation of human-rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel, demonstrated by its requesting (or accepting) donations from Saudi Arabian citizens. HRW has publicly responded to criticism of its reporting on Latin America and the Arab–Israeli conflict.