The real reason Trump's tariffs won't work

And that is, contra his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, yes, buying a bunch of cheap shit IS, or has become, the American way of life.

It started becoming that 40-plus years ago, when Saint Ronald of Reagan first really signed off on not battling protectionism abroad. That said, the first big wave of modern imports was partially Merikkka shooting itself in the foot. At the time of the two oil crises of the 1970s, American small cards were crap. That was halfway acceptable at the time of the 1973-74 oil crisis and Arab partial embargo; at the time of 1979 and Iran, it absolutely was not.

So, Japan kicked American butts. This was primarily due to Big Three intransigence, but UAW workers were about as much at fault.

Skip backward a bit. 

In some ways, I consider JFK the first neoliberal president, not using that totally vaguely, but seriously and at least somewhat narrowly. If not him, it's definitely Jimmy Carter and I've written about that before.

Ronnie? Not really a neolib; nor Poppy Bush.

The Slickster? Absolutely. If James Earl wasn't full blown as a neoliberal, William Jefferson Clinton surely was. Rhodes Scholarship learning and all.

Remember, it was the Slickster who first touted how "engagement" with China would lead to political liberalization. Not!

Beyond that, at least as much as Carter, Clinton and unions weren't always on the same page. It was honestly, under Clinton, that Democrats first started looking really at the "knowledge class" as a basis for politics.

From there, everybody but Trump has been a neoliberal.

OK, along with that?

It's been 17 years since the last minimum wage hike. And, despite my pleas on these pages, Democrats did NOT attach a COLA provision to that last minimum wage hike. That means, contra Bessent, many Merikkkans can't afford to buy more than cheap shit. That's even as the vulture capitalists riding herd on stocks of retailers don't want it any other way.

Second, despite fishing for union support, and some unions dumb enough to give it to him, Trump cares about unions even less than national-level Democrats. He's fine with trashing out the NLRB. And OSHA and workplace safety. Etc., etc.

Safe American factories paying decent wages of course can't compete with China. And, Trump is not about to dish out a COVID-type stimulus specifically targeting lower-income workers to buy items from American factories, even if he did back an increased minimum wage that would slowly kick in.

Trump's tariffs address one symptom of a far bigger problem that he has even less desire of fixing than do Democrats.

Or alleged Trump librul nutters like Batya Ungar Sargon want to admit:

Just when I think Batya Ungar-Sargon can't get any more stupid, she does!
Pro-worker Trump? Really? As he wants to dismantle OSHA and the NLRB?
Anti-war? Guess your Zionism has blinded you to him bombing the hell out of Yemen, supporting genocide and wanting war with Iran. https://t.co/LHO0YWmv5q

— TheRealSocraticGadfly #GLM #PLM 🍉☢️🌻🌲🇵🇸 (@real_gadfly) April 12, 2025

That's in addition to her Zionist and other stupidities, of course.

This is like Ernst Röhm claiming to be a Nazi lefty the day before the Night of the Long Knives.

Are there any Democrats left in Alabama? BUT? WHO is running the state AFL-CIO?

To put it another way, Democraps are running SO FEW (how few?) candidates for state House and Senate seats that the state AFL-CIO has felt compelled to endorse more than 25 Libertarians in hopes of cock-blocking some Rethuglicans. 

And, you of course guessed it; there's no Democraps in any of those races.

That said, this is also on the Bammy state AFL-CIO; Independent Political Report also notes that it's endorsing NINE Rethuglicans. Really? Is that just a circle jerking of thinking you have to endorse a candidate in every race, even if it's a craptacular Rethug vs an even worse, in this case, Libertarian-tard?

UNfortunately, and this IS a callout, the new and allegedly improve IPR, with an actual managing editor (paid?) writing this piece, didn't look behind the curtain at Ballotpedia.

Because (and I posted there last night) it would have told Jordan Willow-Evans that yes, the AFL-CIO is doing exactly such a circle jerk. In state Senate District 5, it's endorsing an unopposed Rethug. (And I see nothing in Greg Reed's background to mandate an endorsement, as far as AL Senate committees, etc.) BUT, in Districts 8-11, which also have no opposition, there's no endorsement. But, in Sen 14, another unopposed Rethug is endorsed. (Also, sidebar for Independent Political Report saying "LOOK, Libertarians," why didn't they recruit one for this race? Yes, Weaver was in the state House before, but still.)

S16? Unopposed Rethug.

Without bothering to link, they're endorsing multiple unopposed Rethugs in the state House as well. 

WHY?

I actually halfway understand endorsing Libertarians over Rethugs. With their civil liberties angle, re freedom of assembly including the right to organize, they're more supportive of that than Rethugs. But, as far as supporting actual union activity? It may be closer to peas in a pod.

I tagged both the state AFL-CIO and A-list freelance labor reporter Mike Elk on Twitter, separately. Neither has responded.

In the Army ... and in the union!

Cue up that old Village People song, even though it's about "In the Navy."

The Justice Department last month greenlighted the right of national guard troops to unionize while on state duty, saying that, during that time, they're state employees, not members of the military. Strangely, Strangeabbott has been silent about this, even though the Texas National Guard has been a leader in this push because of Strangeabbott keeping them called up on long terms for Operation Lone Star, then kicking them in the nads in various ways.

The first meeting of the Texas State Employees Union’s Military Caucus is set for this week.

Update: They have met, are officially organized as part of the Texas State Employees Union and met as the Texas State Employees Union's Military Caucus. Since the meeting, the Texas Military Department has moderately addressed two of the concerns Guardsmen had. 

And Military News profiles Hunter Schuler, the man behind the unionization drive. Also, per this piece, while TMD may have moderately addressed a couple of Guardsmen concerns, it has at the same time gone into anti-union demagoguery and more, all surely at the beck and call of Strangeabbott.

Question: Where's R.F. O'Rourke, aka Beto-Bob, on this? As of a day or two ago, I saw nothing on his Twitter feed after direct questioning about his stance. Per that update, it's clear that many Guardsmen think they're being used as political pawns. Open, outright and vocal support of their unionization would seem to be a no-brainer. That said, per the Military News link, at least in the past, Democrats haven't looked on military unionization much more favorably than Republicans.

I was close to boycotting Winco over masking laxity; I still have new second thoughts about the company

I've long been a fan of Winco Discount Foods, and was glad to find out that, when I moved closer to the Metromess than I've been since I left it, that Denton had one.

For the unaware? Winco, which not perfect, has some of the best of Aldi, some of the best of Kroger, and some of the best of Central Market.

Versus Aldi? It has a much more robust house lines brand, and much of it cheaper. PLUS? Other than Aldi's generic Triscuits, it sells nothing whole wheat and sells no brown rice. I can get house brand whole wheat pastas at Winco for 79 cents a pound. Brown rice for 50 cents a pound. And, in the bulk area, whole wheat berries and whole oat groats. Hold on to that.

Versus Kroger? Unlike Aldi, it has a full produce section. It also has more refrigerated and frozen items, including, for those who imbibe, a full range of beers.

Versus Central Market? While its bulk food area is not quite as complete, it's well ahead of any Kroger that sells bulk foods. A good assortment of spices. House brand whole bean coffee is pretty good. Spelt, teff and farro flours, which even most Central Markets don't have. And, for junk food fans? About as much bulk candy.

That said? Last Saturday, people were coming in without masks, and I'm not sure I recall it clearly posted.

I talked to the clerk who mans the self-serve checkouts. She talked to the Hispanic person who had just entered, and I used my rudimentary Spanish as well. She waited while her daughter, sister or whomever went to their car and got one.

OK. Problem solved.

Then, I noticed a very Anglo Karen-type well into the store. I loud-spoke, but short of yelled, at her. No response. Went to said clerk. She did an intercom announcement.

I saw Karen again at the back of the store. I yelled at her this time. Still nothing.

Well, Winco was out of house brand whole wheat pasta, which was my biggest want, and I'd already hit Kroger. So, after seeing nobody at the customer service desk, I left.

And, Twitter-messaged and Facebook-posted to Winco's accounts.

And, I got shit-weaselness on both.

First, Twitter, to which I did not respond.

Hi there! Thank you for contacting us to share your experience. We can confirm that face coverings are required of all our employees until further notice. In regards to the public, we are following all local mandates in the areas where we operate at this time and will refuse service where directly required to do so. We highly encourage everyone to review applicable mandates and CDC guidance before visiting our store, since each individual is personally responsible for compliance - please note that medical exemptions may apply. With that said, our leaders continue to review this topic and the possibility of requiring masks of our customers company-wide. We can't make specific guarantees but will gladly include your feedback! Have a great day!

OK, lemme see. First, I didn’t mention employees.

On local mandates? Let’s translate based on Facebook, where I did respond.

Hi Snyder, we appreciate you sharing and for notifying an employee there at the store. While we encourage face coverings for the public (employees are required), we do follow city mandates. We do not see our Denton location listed that they have to require masks; please note we also follow the list of mask exemptions outlined by the city mandate.

In other words, per Facebook, if the city of Denton and Denton County don’t order businesses to require masks, they’re going to take a very loose definition of Gov. Abbott’s order and a very liberal, or libertarian, belief in the ability of people to social distance inside a grocery store.

I posted selections from Abbott’s order in response.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, do hereby order the following on a statewide basis effective at 12:0 1 p.m. on July 3, 2020:

Every person in Texas shall wear a face covering over the nose and mouth when inside a commercial entity or other building or space open to the public, or when in an outdoor public space, wherever it is not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing from another person not in the same household.

I don’t believe it’s feasible in a grocery store.

As for Winco corporately “continuing to review” the issue?

My local Wally, in a place much smaller than Denton, was “strongly encouraging” masks with door attendants when Abbott announced his order, and before Wally made the nationwide order. My local Tom Thumb interpreted his order as requiring masks. Hell, the dollar store next door to me does. And since then, Tom Thumb and Randall's parent Albertsons has required masks, as has HEB.

As for the Twitter response? We “will refuse service where directly required to do so”? So, does that mean I have to chase a Karen all the way around the store, get a clerk to be with me and then say: “Refuse her service”?

As for “medical exceptions may apply”? Lawyers who know their shit already say that a person claiming a medical exception does NOT have an automatic Americans with Disabilities Act right to enter a store. Curb service/takeout or delivery are the first two options a grocer or other retailer can offer.

So, with all of this, I will likely be in Denton next Satruday, as normal. Whether I actually need anything or not, if I remember, I will look for a “masks required” sign. I don’t recall seeing one. If I remember to check, and clearly don’t see one? Boycott is official.

That said, per its website, which I checked as I was writing this? Winco has now accepted reality and as of today is requiring masks. Perhaps the power of complaints, or even threats of boycotts, did something?

As another person said in the same thread on Winco's Facebook page, they thought Winco was better. Being employee-owned, I did, too. But, per DeSmog blog writing about their infilitration into Bakken oilfield companies, Three Percenters might own a company. Employee ownership itself really doesn't mean much.

In Winco's case, though, because, since we're owned by employees, that means our employees have the final say on everything and love us, or similar bullshit, it means being officially antiunion. Not just nonunion. Antiunion. Elsewhere, the company notes it has some select union contracts, like meatcutters. Flip side of that is that it's basically impossible to hire a meatcutter without a union, so this isn't something totally voluntary by Winco. One should note that a number of the longest-serving employees are millionaires. And, Winco has a corporate incentive to pay employees a fair amount wages rather than in ESOP ownership, while using the claim of "the employees own us" as proof there's no need for a union.

Erm, wrong!

It's a warehouse with membership fees, and being single, I'd never recoup them, but ...

Costco pays employees even better and is definitely union-friendly. And, on the flip side? Walmart, while not employee owned, does offer stock options. And pays like crap, all things considered.

This all said, unions aren't perfect. Hell, police unions are teaching us that by the day. But they do have their value still in many cases.

Finally on this issue for now? Knowing that Winco was started in Boise, and knowing the Mormon Church's "storied" antiunion history, I wonder if that's lurking in the background.

$15? Or $10.10? And how quickly?

After figuring out that Thomas Piketty has written a left-neoliberal book on capitalism's faults that ignores organized labor, and also figuring out that Bill Clinton will never, ever apologize to labor for NAFTA and the WTO, I can sympathize with the international fast-food employees' strike in wanting a higher minimum wage.

(Hat tip to Perry for reminding me of this.)

But, per the header of this piece? That said, in details of the strike, I think $15/hr, without a phase-in of seven or so years, is too high. Even then, it might be a bit much. The $10.10 of Beltway rounds, with a four-year phase-in, AND a COLA clause as part of that, sounds about right to me.

And, that's in part due to strategy reasons — reasons of what's realistic — as well as other considerations. And, I'm not alone:

Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University, said Thursday’s protests were an example of “the labor movement reinventing itself. It’s the most experimental thing labor has done in a long time.”

But he characterized the goal of a $15 hourly minimum as overly ambitious.

“They seem to forget you have to take little steps at a time,” he said. “When you don’t have very much, getting a little can mean a lot. You can’t get it all at once.”

Exactly.

And, expecting $15 an hour and almost immediately? Your store managers would put you all on salary and abuse comp time laws. Or try to figure out a way to classify you as independent contractors. Or simply shut down less profitable locations.

Yes, I know big businesses often use threats of closure or cuts as their own negotiating tools. And, I know that McDonald's jobs can't be outsourced to China.

And, I know it's true that wages are a fairly small portion of overhead for fast-food restaurants. Nonetheless, asking for them to be more than doubled off the current US minimum wage of $7.25 is a bit much.

And, if wages get to honestly be too big a portion, businesses will do more than just threats. Besides closures, or cuts, you could have cuts combined with split shifts. Every day of your work week. Or, even more of last-minute call-ins, or last-minute stay-homes, on your work schedule.

We also have to remember that a country as fast, populous and diversified as the US has great regional income disparities. In my current location in Texas, a $15/hr minimum wage would pretty much gut half the jobs here.

I blogged about this a bit before with Seattle's push for a $15 minimum wage. Protesters need to, per Chaison, have some sense of political reality.

They also need to have some sense of economic reality.

And, that's not just at the local level. The movement behind this all, Fast Food Forward is reportedly backed financially by Service Employees International Union.

A $15/hr minimum wage, at a full-time, year-round job, would produce a higher wage than the current individual median income, per the Census Bureau. I can understand (unlike Barack Obama) a deliberate "overshoot" as part of negotiations, but when you're pricing yourself out of the ballpark at the start, you don't sound very realistic. Or very well-informed. And, it's not just small-town Texas. Let's take Maplewood, Mo., a down-on-the-edges, but not totally "out," St. Louis suburb. A minimum wage of $15/hr on a 40-hr week puts you at 95 percent of annual household income there, and at almost 45 percent above per capita income. Nearly the same is true in a nowhere near down-at-the-edges heartland city, Grand Island, Neb. About 40 percent above the per capita median, and while only about 75 percent of the household income, still.

And, given that these protests are being backed or organized to some fair degree by organized labor folks well above the level of individual fast-food workers, that too is sad. Even in the glory days of Eisenhower, when adjusted into real dollars, the minimum wage was never but a sliver above $10 an hour.

So, restaurant workers? Dial back to $10.10, but with unionization rights as part of the deal. As for the $10.10, the Center for American Progress agrees. Its reason? That would be 50 percent of the national mean (not median) per capita. Elsewhere, Dylan Matthews notes than $15 would be 75 percent of the national median. Given the amount of economic diversity I indicated exists in America, I am confident in saying that it would be more than 100 percent of the median for census tracts of 25 percent of America.

Sadly, per Matthews, Felix Salmon is dumb enough to tout the $15 minimum, too. He says it would help the feds by bringing in tax revenue and moving people off the Earned Income Tax Credit. He should know better. He should know that with as high of a hike as I propose, even in northeastern metropolitan areas, some of this will happen.

Of course, about nobody I link above has ever lived in small-town Midwest or South areas.

SEIU? The same for the bulk of the types of workers you represent. Don't overshoot; you won't get sympathy for the broader issues behind this, including ever-increasing judicial hostility. Beyond that, that hostility is backed by Rick Snyder's election as governor of Michigan, Scott Walker's election as governor of Michigan, and more. A lot of Americans think that "union" is a four-letter word.

That said, I know that not a lot of workers are working 40 hours a week on minimum wage and that American unions like to use the minimum wage to bolster employees on the first tier above that. That then said, that's why a $15/hr request is really bad. SEIU? Nobody's going to want to pay janitors and security guards $17/hr in Grand Island, Neb. Simply ain't happening. They'll put up with dirty banks and fewer security guards.

Tocqueville missed noting that America is a land of confrontations, as part of American democracy. Too bad he wasn't here in the 1880s.

Speaking of him, this is part of why the US can't be fully like Western Europe. Lower population density, and more diversity within the various states. Well, maybe Western Europe will learn its lesson that a "Western Europe" that includes places like Greece under the euro umbrella can't be fully like Western Europe, either.

Finally, it's also why I identify myself on this blog as a skeptical left-liberal. I attempt to subject left-liberal ideas to some form of logical and empirical analysis before discussing them.

Update, May 18: Another way to put this, per the comment of Simon, who's non-American, is that the minimum wage, with that much of hike, has a broad parallel to the European Union's Eurozone crisis, to more clearly spell out what I first said. The rural South and Midwest are Greece, and New York City is London. Raise the minimum to $15/hr, and fair chunks of the US become post-eurozone crisis Greece.

And, per Simon's one comment, I noted that at $7.25, wages are a relatively modest part of fast-food overhead; I specifically indicated that likely would not be the same at $15. (Also, per that link to the Washington Post blog about the Center for American Progress, Australia's $16+ minimum wage would only be about $12 at most, here, at least under CAP's sensical idea. Also, Australia's minimum wage has a variety of loopholes, per that same link.

So, with that, and the added links above, can we please stop believing that a $15 minimum would be a painless panacea? I've already knocked down attempts to link it and helping the homeless.

Did Obama steal Anita Perry's backbone?

First, we here in Texas, especially, know why Rick Perry reassessed his reassessment of the state of his campaign. Wife Anita, who could be a slightly less Stepford version of Cal(l)ista Flockhart Gingrich, has had his cojones in her personal jewel box ever since rumors about Brokeback Rick and his allegedly pending offshore divorce plans nearly a decade ago.

In other words, the "god" that told Rick Perry to run has a first name, and it's Anita.

That said, Barack Obama has found a backbone that Michelle Obama never had to worry about stealing from him, or so it temporarily seems.

Recess appointments not only to head the consumer finance agency but to bring the National Labor Relations Board up to full strength? What, other than the 2012 presidential elections, is up with that?

Actually, on the NLRB, it's probably clear, as Keystone XL is also indicating. Obama believes he needs both the numbers and organizing potential of unions to shore up his candidacy and rebuild enthusiasm that young Occupiers probably won't all have for him. So, this backbone probably won't extend to environmental issues. And, even with unions, it will be subverted to Dear Leader's version of "triangulation" on other economic-related issues. What if the debt stupid-committee or the Catfood Commission open their collective mouths, though?

Stay tuned.

Walmart, lies, unionization

So, Walmart is OK with unions outside of the U.S. and Canada because employees want them? With the implication that they don't here?
Its employees are not unionized in the United States, where the retailer has become infamous for its staunch opposition to labor groups. Even in Canada, it closed a store after workers there organized. But in the United Kingdom, Wal-Mart touts a growing roster of union employees and has negotiated contracts with entrenched labor groups in Brazil and Argentina for decades.

“We recognize those rights,” said John Peter “J.P.” Suarez , senior vice president of international business development at Wal-Mart. “In that market, that’s what the associates want, and that’s the prevailing practice.”
The fact that WallyWorld is infamous for its staunch opposition to unionism illustrates clearly that ... its American employees want them!

Lying sacks of shit.

Wisconsin Dems cave

If this WSJ story is correct, "cave" is the only word to be used for the 14 Democrats of the Wisconsin state senate.

The 14 think that bill Gov. Scott Walker wants to pass, ending collective bargaining for state unionized employees, will "taint" him and the rest of the state GOP.

"Taint"? As if far-right GOPers are worried about that.

Once again, Democrats lack both clues and gonads at the same time.

On the clueless front, here's Dem. state Sen. Miller:

He said he thinks recent polls showing voter discontent with Mr. Walker over limits on bargaining rights have been "disastrous" for the governor and Republicans and give Democrats more leverage to seek changes in a broader two-year budget bill Mr. Walker proposed Tuesday.

Really? Let's hear from the other side of the aisle.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said Sunday night that the "budget repair" bill can't be amended at this point. But it's possible that over the next few weeks adjustments could be made to Mr. Walker's broader budget plan, he said.

I'm sure any such adjustments will be minor and cosmetic.

Beyond that, what if they're wrong? Looking at this in a zero-sum way, Walker wins because Dems caved. That's going to be the story line.

Why wouldn't it? In another story, the Wisconsin 14 admitted negotiations had failed, and apparently, they weren't ready to play hardball beyond that, depsite poll numbers trending their way.

Of course, Walker said polls didn't sway him. (Unless funded by the Koch brothers, of course!):

"If I governed by polls I'd still be in the state Assembly," Mr. Walker said on Friday. "I won reelection twice as county executive in an area of the state that went two-thirds for President Obama by identifying a problem, telling people how I was going to deal with it, and then moving forward with the solution."

Again, Walker was ready to play this as a zero-sum game, and so he won.

And, it's not just the collective bargaining bill. It's the zero-sum, winner-takes-all tactics in general. Don't the Wisconsin 14 read e-mails or whatever from their constituents, talking about stuff like this?

I understand you have a senator who is seven months pregnant. That said, to be honest, even if it sounds a bit cold, how that affected your calculations should have been discussed in advance of the walkout. If you had followed the details of the similar situation in Texas of several years ago, you knew that you could be out of state for quite some time.

And, speaking more of tactics ... what if union works just stay home from the polls more, figuring Wisconsin Democrats are fair-weather friends?

As for the claims of Miller that the Wisconsin 14 haven't announced a "date certain" for return, that's just window dressing. You've announced you're throwing in the towel and that's the bottom line.

Does Wisconsin have much of a Green party?

===

Update: First, this TPM story touted as proof the WSJ story is wrong? The first two grafs are spin, nothing more. There's no "denial" there.

Second, state Sen. Chris Larsen's Facebook comment, and the Politico storyreferencing it? Two specific additional points.

1. While the WSJ news department, on political news, isn't as bad or close to it as its op-ed page, nonetheless, it isn't sterling. If Miller in particular, or the Wisconsin 14 in general, had nothing new to say, then why tell that to the WSJ?
2. If you really, really aren't coming back until Walker pulls the bill and resubmits it without the collective bargaining issue, why not draw a line in the sand? If one of the quasi-sympathetic Republicans in the state senate will be sympathetic enough to walk out with you, you can do that for sure.

Don't write off labor as part of liberalism's future

Earlier this week in Salon, Michael Lind noted that labor unionism was only one strand of progressive politics in the U.S. and that social democracy had actually contributed more.

Matthew Dimick counters that, in today's all-on assault by the right on all angles of progressive politics, union strength is going to be necessary to further social democratic politics.

Unions vs. broader liberalism

Does the decline of unions necessarily mean the decline of liberalism in general?

Michael Lind is sometimes good, sometimes "eehh" and sometimes very good.

In answering "no" to the question above, he's very good.

He reminds us that unionism isn't the only strain of liberalism from the past and that unions have opposed some social democracy initiatives before, like national healthcare. (Also, unions in the past had race issues at times, and lets not forget all those "Reagan Democrats.")

That said, the "why" of union decline, and the push to actively accelerate it, aren't good news for liberalism in general, though.

If Shakespeare were a GOP governor

Especially a new blue-state one, he'd be says, "First, we kill all the unions."

Right-to-work laws have NOTHING to do with state budgets and deficits. It's clear that this is a wet-dream opening for an anti-employee party that it hasn't seen since the likes of St. Ronald of Reagan 30 years ago.

As for unfunded pension liabilities? Those fall on nonunionized as well as unionized retirees, and the lack of funding won't be addressed one thin dime by a state passing a right-to-work law.

That said, the AFL-CIO has its work cut out for it on dealing with this crap. You can help. Don't let wingnuts lie to you when they raise issues like this.

Beyond that, since it's clear the GOP at the Washington level simply doesn't care about deficits, why would the statehouse GOP be different on other mattes of fiscal trutihness?

Irony alert – unions to tackle healthcare astroturfers

Huffington Post says AFL-CIO member unions will directly counter the healthcare astroturfers disrupting Congressional town halls.

The memo from AFL-CIO head Richard Sweeney also mentions specific items of support in healthcare reform — including the “public option.”

This is coming from the third leg of the stool of OPPOSITION to public national healthcare for the last 50-plus years.

Where healthcare reform stands June 24

President Barack Obama vows that he “absolutely” will get healthcare reform done but refuses to discuss details.

Perhaps that’s because Ted Rall, who calls Obama a “militant moderate (like) Bill Clinton” says that what Obama has on the table will only insure about one-quarter of the uninsured, per Congressional Budget Office scoring of the Dodd-Kennedy plan. So far, The One has remained quiet on the Wyden alternative, which is disliked by big business (no surprise) and by the unions that have killed every real move toward national healthcare since Harry Truman.

(Many liberals and conservatives alike are ignorant of this simple fact. But, since World War II, unions have viewed their level of union-negotiated healthcare as a recruitment tool to get more workers. Well, with private-sector unionization pushing down toward the single-digit level, that’s obviously been a huge success).

In clear short-sightedness, unions don’t get that they would still be free to bargain for supplemental additional coverage, or other benefits, if we get single-payer national healthcare. Canada and Great Britain still have plenty of unions, don’t they?

Meanwhile, various medical-related lobbying groups, like the one for MRI operators, along with rural doctors and others, are starting to go into opposition over worries about reimbursements, etc.

Odds of comprehensive healthcare reform, including single payer, at this time? I’d say 60-40 against. Odds that major unions will, once again, dodge their deserved share of blame if we fail to get real healthcare reform? About 70-30 in favor.

Starbucks OK with EFCA alternative; SEIU involved?

In fact, the Seattle coffee giant is actively exploring a legislative option to the Employee Free Choice Act, thereby drawing the fire of pro-business groups like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Vice President Stefan H. Gleason called Starbucks' position “totally unacceptable.”

The story says Starbucks is “engaged in dialogue” on the possible alternative, but doesn’t say with whom.

Off the top of my head, I guess Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union. Given that he has a history of being employer-friendly, and a parallel history in being aggressive in seeking out new union turf, this would be his type of move.

Update: It turns out the Starbucks option ain’t much of an option, from a labor POV. Even Andy Stern can’t be short-sighted enough to sign off on something like this, either.

With ‘onerous’ union, Wal-Mart closes Canadian tire center

Wal-Mart is shutting down a unionized Tire & Lube Express in Gatineau, Que.

Wal-Mart HQ in Bentonville, Ark., told a John McCain-level lie when it claimed the labor contract an arbitrator imposed would raise operating costs by 30 percent.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union called the closure an "attack" on Wal-Mart workers. Wal-Mart in 2005 closed a store in Jonquiere, Quebec, after workers there agreed to unionize. The union has a Canada Supreme Court case pending over whether those workers' rights were violated.

Craig Herkert, Wal-Mart's chief executive officer for the Americas, said Oct. 6 the contract was “onerous.”

An international union? About time

If a merger of two British unions go through, the new Amicus and its American and German unions with which it has alliances would have a combined membership of more than 7.5 million members. A full merger of manufacturing unions in three of the largest economies of the world (including No. 1 and 3) would be huge.

Derek Simpson, general secretary of Amicus, said: “Our aim is to create a powerful single union that can transcend borders to challenge the global forces of capital. I envisage a functioning, if loosely federal, multinational trade union organisation within the next decade.”

Here’s hoping that Derek Simpson is right. The decline of First World trade unionism needs to be reversed and fast.