Showing posts with label Labor Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labor Rights. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2009

Made in America?

Here's something sad, maddening and a bit amusing:

Made in America: Corporate PR, Not Practice

Big Business wants it both ways: It wants to wrap itself in the ol’ red, white and blue while feeding the decline of the U.S. economy through its actual practices.

Here’s the latest example of such corporate hypocrisy. Over the Memorial Day weekend, J.C. Penney advertised a silkscreen T-shirt bearing the slogan, “American Made.” Yet when Joe Allen, a retired apparel manufacturer in the Dallas area, bought the T-shirt, he found it actually was made in Mexico—”of USA fabric.”

Allen didn’t just shrug off such a blatant sleight of hand. He took action, contacting Steve Capozzola at the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Capozzola sent an e-mail to J.C. Penney, saying that the ad was deceptive and asking why the shirt “was emblazoned with an ‘American Made’ slogan when it was in fact made in Mexico.”

Here’s what J.C. Penney spokesperson Kelly Sanchez had to say:

"You indicate that there was a shirt that depicted the slogan “American Made.” This type of slogan is referring to the actual person wearing the shirt and not to the manufacturing of the merchandise."

Full article at the AFL-CIO Blog.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

“Free Trade” vs. “Protectionism” is a False Debate

Labor activist Jonathan Tasini over at the Working Life Blog makes a good point when he says:

[N]o one is against trade. Trade has taken place since the beginning of human history. The only question is what RULES we put in place to manage trade. The issue of so-called "free trade" and, by extension, how one views the power of corporate America to shape our economic lives is, from my little vantage point, THE deep, systemic change question on the economic vision side.

I have argued for a very long time that "free trade" is just a marketing phrase. It does not exist in the world today -- and perhaps never has. What we have are a very set of complex rules that are about one thing: seeking the lowest wage possible.

He adds:

So-called "free trade" lives in the same economic neighborhood as sub-prime mortgages, CEO greed, the attack against unions and the divide between rich and poor -- all of which point to the real challenge we must address: the collapse of wages for most Americans. Until we take that head on, we won't get out of the economic crisis we find ourselves mired in.

The issue of so-called "free trade" is precisely an area where we need to have a vigorous, consistent, unyielding "loyal opposition" to the Administration. We can't depend on the president to change the debate on trade because he is a captive of a system that can only see trade in the prism of the debate between two false marketing phrases: "protectionism" versus "free trade".


In another post, Tasini radically re-frames the argument on economic policy beyond the limitations of “free trade” versus “protectionism” to one that examines the relationship between wage growth and productivity. He says:

Basically, the basic bargain was roughly this -- if you worked hard and became more productive, you would see that sweat of the brow in your wages. And from the post-war era until the 1970s, that deal basically held -- as you can see from the lines that are basically close together until the 1970s. (The graphic in the link illustrates his point).

Then, the lines diverge--dramatically. You can see it yourself. If the lines had continued to track closely together as they did prior to the 1970s, the MINIMUM WAGE would be more than $19 an hour. THE MINIMUM WAGE!!!

So, in short: people had no money coming in their paychecks so they were forced to pay for their lives through credit -- either plastic or drawing down equity from their homes. There are lots of reasons that this happened -- greed, the attack against unions, de-regulation, dumb trade deals.

But, the point is: we will never fix the economic crisis, whether through short-term economic stimulus and certainly not through tax cuts, until paychecks are re-inflated. Dramatically.

Tasini argues for a radical way of re-framing the bailout and stimulus debate and designs a bailout plan for the working and middle class in this post.

What do you all think? I think Tasini is on to something. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, I think he is absolutely right on target when he says the “free trade” vs. “protectionism” debate is a false one between two empty and meaningless marketing phrases. We have to get beyond that type of thinking if we are to come up with creative and effective ways to cope with and come up with solutions to this economic crisis.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Unions are the problem with the auto industry, according to Mitt Romney

Former Massachusetts Governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has written an op-ed in the New York Times about the auto industry. Gov. Romney is uniquely qualified to comment on the industry...not only due to his personal knowledge of the business but also because his father was the president of American Motors. I was expecting, then, something that was thoughtful and insightful; unfortunately, this article included the same old Republican talking points. It could have been written by Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh.

In a little less than 900 words, Gov. Romney summed up the problems of the auto industry in one word...unions. Unions are the sole problem. Not once in the article did he mention anything about management. He did not mention anything about healthcare costs. The problem was simply labor costs. The former governor mentioned that American automakers spend the extra $2000 per car. Other car manufacturers like BMW, Honda or Toyota don't have to pay this expense. Unions are the root of all evil. That's Romney's argument in a nutshell.

Nowhere in Gov. Romney's article does it mention anything about CEO pay. He doesn't mention that the CEO of General Motors, G. Richard Wagoner, is getting paid about $14.4 million per year. That is not much when compared to hedge fund managers who made hundreds of millions (some times billions) of dollars per year...but when you compare that to less than $1 million per year that the CEO of Toyota takes home everything comes into focus.
Gov. Romney, like many other Republicans, argues that America does not need to bail out the auto industry. Instead, America needs to let the auto industry go bankrupt. Once they file for Chapter 11, the auto industry can renegotiate contracts and refocus on their product.

Lee Iacocca , 1979, received loan guarantees from the United States government. His Chrysler Corporation began to produce smaller, cost-efficient carsThe Dodge Aries and the Plymouth Reliant are examples.. In 1983, Chrysler introduced the minivan to the United States. Because of these innovations, Chrysler was able to pay off its loans seven years ahead of schedule. (Iococca's silence is troubling. I hope that he isn't sick. hope that he will weigh in on this subject.)
I will not pretend to know all the ins and outs of Detroit. What I will tell you is that throughout the 1980s and 1990s they pumped out a series of cars that were unreliable, expensive and guzzled gas. During this time, Toyota and Honda chipped away at their market share by delivering small, cost-efficient and reliable cars. There is no doubt that mistakes were made both by management and labor throughout this time. For too long Detroit has continued to rely on SUV and truck sales which have large profit margins. A new model needs to be developed. Detroit has to figure out a way to develop cars quicker and faster. Detroit needs to innovate. (I know everybody uses the word innovate, too much, meaning create something.) Detroit needs to develop several types of new cars. These cars should include electric cars and hydrogen cars. There should be new fuel-efficient cars. We need to be more and better hybrid cars. The reliability of American cars should be unparalleled. Detroit should not expect Americans to buy a new car every 3-4 years. Americans don't make that kind of money anymore.

The American auto industry must take risks. In the past, the auto industry was making way too much money to take any risks. They never sqw the need to do so. They were forced to embrace seatbelts, safety glass, anti-lock brakes and other innovations. In my opinion, small divisions should be set up to take risks, while they alll design and research auto safety to see if it all works.

Finally, Detroit needs to look at several problems and work with labor unions and the government to fix these problems. These problems include (but are not limited to) healthcare costs, pension costs...labor costs. If Detroit can build a car that is as good as a Mercedes, Audi or BMW...I don't mind paying the extra $1000 - $1500 more if I know the workers are being well compensated.