Is it “idiotic” or “socialism” if someone supports worker rights?
President Obama’s speech to the nation last night overshadowed the Senate confirmation of a new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.
After nearly two months of trying to derail her appointment, many Republicans got on board and confirmed the congresswoman from California in an 80 to 17 vote.
Because of her strong pro-worker views and record, the business community fears her and the labor movement loves her.
I wrote about Solis after Obama chose her in this blog, including how she’s expected to support minimum wage hikes and unionization, among other things.
And this week, in my MSNBC.com column, I also included her appointment as a reason many experts believe Obama is pro-worker.
Obama’s choice for labor secretary has received a big round of applause from labor advocates — and a big thumbs down from business.
Hilda Solis, a Democratic congresswoman from California, is well known for her pro-labor fervor.
“She has worked for the rights of poor and disenfranchised workers; to increase minimum wages; for workers’ rights to unionize and expect fair treatment, benefits and wages; and for green jobs,” says Myrtle Bell, associate professor of management at the University of Texas at Arlington.
The column looks largely at Obama’s initiatives for the working stiff and how he may end up doing more for U.S. workers than any president in the last two decades.
The story prompted some angry emails.
Dave writes:
Every time one of Obama’s minions opens their mouth the stock market declines further and more of us loose our jobs. Socialism is not the way to prosperity. On the other hand capitalism, when unhindered by the government, has proven to be the best job creator ever.
The sooner we get Obama, and the democratic idiots in congress unelected, the sooner meaningful recovery can take place.
For saying Obama is good for workers I must lump you into the idiot category right along with congress.
While I thought that was a cheap shot, the email says something about how we view worker rights and unions in this country. Any time someone promises to level the playing field and protect workers, it’s immediately labeled socialism.
Is Solis a socialist because she advocated for disenfranchised workers?
February 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The reason we’re in this mess is because of the unprecedented greed of those at the top of the food chain, who have been allowed to stuff themselves silly by the deregulation-happy right wing that’s been in power for much of the last 30 years. Why do people think it’s acceptable to pay a CEO millions of dollars but not to pay the janitor who cleans his office a living wage?
As much as people like Dave want to think the US is a purely capitalist country, it isn’t. We’ve had programs in place for decades about which today’s “conservatives” would have screamed socialism had they been developed today. The demonization of socialism has kept us spitting on fair treatment of workers for too long. If Solis’ support for labor is socialism, I say bring it on!
February 25th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“…capitalism, when unhindered by the government, has proven to be the best job creator ever.”
That’s right up there with peace at any cost. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.
I suspect Dave hasn’t been on the receiving end of “be thankful you have a job” and how it’s used to justify unethical, illegal, and just plain unfair actions.
The success of a company and it’s leaders is determined by increasing profit margins. Assuming they’re always going to act ethically is as foolish as expecting a child with a sweet tooth to have access to a candy jar but not sneaking candy between meals.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
As much as I associate myself with the term “fiscal conservative”, I must say that all of the flippant remarks about “moving toward socialism” are not only annoying, but unfounded; not only false, but fear-mongering; not only an ideoligical spitwad, but also a sign of unapplied education.
Even if this country were to adopt a stance of increased regulatory oversight, it does not mean that we would suddenly be a socialist nation. First and foremost, we each would still have rights to private property, and the majority of jobs would not be subject to state-mandated levels (aside from our prescribe minimum wage).
While I understand how some reason that any move toward “leveling the playing field” is a move toward socialism, it is akin to arguing that I am moving toward vegitarianism because my doctor has instructed me to eat more salad. There is a fallacy in their logic, but it is more tied to ideology than it is tied to rational thought.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I’m all about eating more salad, and helping workers. If that makes me a vegetarian, so be it!
February 25th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
If you can afford salad. ;P
February 26th, 2009 at 2:29 am
‘'’HOLD ON TO YOUR LUGNUTS, IT’S TIME FOR AN OVERHAUL”’
If you tell me a ‘grease-monkey’ is worth $75 per hour, then I assume you beieve a Bus driver is worth $30 per hour. The farmer makes half as much as the baker who makes half as much as the driver who delivers the bread to the store, but the man who built the truck makes more than all of these workers combined!!! Perhaps the evil Corporate millionaire who stupidly gave in to the demands of ‘wrench-holders’ could half their compensation and sprinkle it onto the low wage earners.
Our Democratic controlled Congress and our preceding President allowed the oil company’s to literally hold a gun to our heads. I’m am absolutely positive that I read Exxon made record profits during this period and we all shrugged and said so what. That was wrong. People did change their drivng habits and for some reason, no one noticed. The average consumer adjusted to this inflationary tactic. Lo and behold gas prices nosedived around election time amd we wonder why, or assume it is not a coincidence. It is all relative. Corporate America knew that with a Republican controled White House, the bail-out would be more like a firing squad. They knew with a Democratic White House, they knew they would get whatever they wanted. And they did.
Unless President Obama’s contributors illegally dumped more money than what is allowed, these super millionaires clearly contributed far more to his campaign. This is why this Republican sees Hilda Solis’ nomination to Labor Secretary as being a positive move for the Corporations that happen to employ these people, not unlike me and my $18 per hour maintenance job with full benefits working for a school district of a very middle class, hard working, realist people.
I know a man who owns an HVAC company and he gets about $30 per air filter change. I get $18 per hour if I change one or probably my best effort, maybe five per hour. The man who gets $30 per air filter change, with a $200,000 house and a huge pool will be complaining about getting his fair share and you will not hear a peep out of me.
I am a member of the SEIU. I am completely opposed to many things they are striving for. I was called the worst infection they have had in their history because I honestly have been down this road before. You follow the money. I told them that and I was right to the surprise of people you would not believe. I am the strongest supporter of the SEIU in that corporate leadership must first have an equal parity of profit with the people who make them the money based not on what is left over, but from the top. In other words, reinvest and create more wealth by actually being a part of what labor does for you. It sounds ridiculous, however the very best leaders will put in the longest hours to make sure not one dollar is not part of your corporation. And the rest is all GRAVY.
I’ve been on both sides. I’ve laughed at people toiling because they are stupid. I’ve demonized and threatened them with malice while they laughed at me. I’ve also put in fifteen hour days with no overtime to make remarkable presentations to customers who appreciated hard work.
Your employer owes you more than a paycheck if you work for it. Your employee deserves the very best of your integrity and all the accrued knowledge of your business mind.
The sqeaky wheel gets the grease.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Mr. Graham, while I understand the point you were trying to make with your illustration, I must contest one point: that the delivery driver is the one making more than the baker. I spent a few years as a delivery driver/route sales rep for a bakery, and I didn’t make as much as the bakers, and not even close to half as much as the senior bakers.
Perhaps that company was the oddity in the market, but that was just my experience.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:47 am
I read Robert’s Feb 26th comments and said to myself, “Duuuuh?” What is this big deal about oil companies making “record profits?” It is no longer “Exxon.” It is “Exxon-Mobil.” Two of the largest corporations in the country merged. What a surprise the result was a very large profit for the now “one company.”
The year in which this happened saw record prices for oil … as well as record sales of gasoline. Exxon-Mobil made a combined return-on-investment (ROI) of around 7.5%. That put them in about 15th place as far as making a “per dollar invested” profit. And it is not some evil little cabal of people who own oil stocks. Oil stocks are one of the most widely held investments in this country. MILLIONS of people made profits off their oil stocks. And there were people invested in 14 other industries who made even more on their investments.
If one does not approve of the profits that the oil indutry makes, then they should stop using oil. Or, go buy some oil stocks. But stop the whining about a mediocre 7.5% profit.
I realize that under Obama we are going socialist. But, while we were still capitalists, the idea was to make record profits. It provided a lot of jobs. It stabilized a lot of 401K’s. It provided security to a lot of insurance companies whose actuaries used the profits to reduce premiums. Seems the only “bad side” to record profits in oil is jealousy. Get over it!