Showing posts with label AFL-CIO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFL-CIO. Show all posts

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System




National Seniors Council

A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.

The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.

"This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could," explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, "However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up."

A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)." She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic."

Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."

Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue.

"This whole issue is moving forward very quickly," warns Crone. "Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts."

NSC has taken the lead in warning the nation about this new government onslaught and is plotting ways to stop it.

"This effort ultimately is designed to grab the retirement nest eggs of America’s senior citizens. This new government annuity scheme, even if it is at first optional, will turn into a giant effort to redistribute the wealth of America’s older citizens," explains Crone. "This scheme mirrors what I expect the President will try to do with Social Security. He wants to turn that program into a welfare program, too."

NSC will likely unveil a new grassroots campaign effort later this year or early in January to coincide with the seating of the new Congress.


Saturday, July 7, 2012

The Western Welfare State: Its Rise and Demise and the Soviet Bloc

Global Research
James Petras

Introduction

One of the most striking socio-economic features of the past two decades is the reversal of the previous half-century of welfare legislation in Europe and North America . Unprecedented cuts in social services, severance pay, public employment, pensions, health programs, educational stipends, vacation time, and job security are matched by increases in tuition, regressive taxation, and the age of retirement as well as increased inequalities, job insecurity and workplace speed-up.

The demise of the ‘welfare state’ demolishes the idea put forth by orthodox economists, who argued that the ‘maturation’ of capitalism, its ‘advanced state’, high technology and sophisticated services, would be accompanied by greater welfare and higher income/standard of living. While it is true that ‘services and technology’ have multiplied, the economic sector has become even more polarized, between low paid retail clerks and super rich stock brokers and financiers. The computerization of the economy has led to electronic bookkeeping, cost controls and the rapid movements of speculative funds in search of maximum profit while at the same time ushering in brutal budgetary reductions for social programs.

The ‘Great Reversal’ appears to be a long-term, large-scale process centered in the dominant capitalist countries of Western Europe and North America and in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe . It behooves us to examine the systemic causes that transcend the particular idiosyncrasies of each nation.

The Origins of the Great Reversal

There are two lines of inquiry which need to be elucidated in order to come to terms with the demise of the welfare state and the massive decline of living standards. One line of analysis examines the profound change in the international environment: We have moved from a competitive bi-polar system, based on a rivalry between the collectivist – welfare states of the Eastern bloc and the capitalist states of Europe and North America to an international system monopolized by competing capitalist states.

A second line of inquiry directs us to examine the changes in the internal social relations of the capitalist states: namely the shift from intense class struggles to long-term class collaboration, as the organizing principle in the relation between labor and capital.

The main proposition informing this essay is that the emergence of the welfare state was a historical outcome of a period when there were high levels of competition between collectivist welfarism and capitalism and when class-struggle oriented trade unions and social movements had ascendancy over class-collaborationist organizations.

Clearly the two processes are inter-related: As the collectivist states implemented greater welfare provisions for their citizens, trade unions and social movements in the West had social incentives and positive examples to motivate their members and challenge capitalists to match the welfare legislation in the collectivist bloc.

The Origins and Development of the Western Welfare State

Immediately following the defeat of fascist-capitalist regimes with the defeat of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and its political allies in Eastern Europe embarked on a massive program of reconstruction, recovery, economic growth and the consolidation of power, based on far-reaching socio-economic welfare reforms. The great fear among Western capitalist regimes was that the working class in the West would “follow” the Soviet example or, at a minimum, support parties and actions which would undermine capitalist recovery. Given the political discredit of many Western capitalists because of their collaboration with the Nazis or their belated, weak opposition to the fascist version of capitalism, they could not resort to the highly repressive methods of the past. Instead, the Western capitalist classes applied a two-fold strategy to counter the Soviet collectivist-welfare reforms: Selective repression of the domestic Communist and radical Left and welfare concessions to secure the loyalty of the Social and Christian Democratic trade unions and parties.

With economic recovery and post-war growth, the political, ideological and economic competition intensified: The Soviet bloc introduced wide-ranging reforms, including full employment, guaranteed job security, universal health care, free higher education, one month paid vacation leave, full pay pensions, free summer camps and vacation resorts for worker families and prolonged paid maternity leave. They emphasized the importance of social welfare over individual consumption. The capitalist West was under pressure to approximate the welfare offerings from the East, while expanding individual consumption based on cheap credit and installment payments made possible by their more advanced economies. From the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s the West competed with the Soviet bloc with two goals in mind: To retain workers loyalties in the West while isolating the militant sectors of the trade unions and to entice the workers of the East with promises of comparable welfare programs and greater individual consumption.

Despite the advances in social welfare programs, East and West, there were major worker protests in East Europe : These focused on national independence, authoritarian paternalistic tutelage of trade unions and insufficient access to private consumer goods. In the West, there were major worker-student upheavals in France and Italy demanding an end of capitalist dominance in the workplace and social life. Popular opposition to imperialist wars ( Indo-China , Algeria , etc.), the authoritarian features of the capitalist state (racism) and the concentration of wealth was widespread.

In other words, the new struggles in the East and West were premised on the consolidation of the welfare state and the expansion of popular political and social power over the state and productive process.

The continuing competition between collectivist and capitalist welfare systems ensured that there would be no roll-back of the reforms thus far achieved. However, the defeats of the popular rebellions of the sixties and seventies ensured that no further advances in social welfare would take place. More importantly a social ‘deadlock’ developed between the ruling classes and the workers in both blocs leading to stagnation of the economies, bureaucratization of the trade unions and demands by the capitalist classes for a dynamic, new leadership, capable of challenging the collectivist bloc and systematically dismantling the welfare state.

The Process of Reversal: From Reagan-Thatcher to Gorbachev

The great illusion, which gripped the masses of the collectivist-welfare bloc, was the notion that the Western promise of mass consumerism could be combined with the advanced welfare programs that they had long taken for granted. The political signals from the West however were moving in the opposite direction. With the ascendancy of President Ronald Reagan in the US and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, the capitalists regained full control over the social agenda, dealing mortal blows to what remained of trade union militancy and launching a full scale arms race with the Soviet Union in order to bankrupt its economy. In addition, ‘welfarism’ in the East was thoroughly undermined by an emerging class of upwardly mobile, educated elites who teamed up with kleptocrats, neo-liberals, budding gangsters and anyone else who professed ‘Western values’. They received political and material support from Western foundations, Western intelligence agencies, the Vatican (especially in Poland ), European Social Democratic parties and the US AFL-CIO while, on the fringes, an ideological veneer was provided by the self-described ‘anti-Stalinist’ leftists in the West.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Obama to Aid Uzbek Dictatorship

AntiWar
Steven Zunes

Karimov’s Uzbekistan Boils People Alive (Until Dead)
The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, in a move initiated by the Obama administration, has voted to waive Bush-era human rights restrictions on military aid to the Islam Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, one of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet. The lifting of the restrictions, now part of the Foreign Operations bill, is before the full Senate and appears to have bipartisan support. The Obama administration has indicated that it intends to provide taxpayer-funded military assistance to Uzbekistan once the legislation passes both houses of Congress.

Torture is endemic in Karimov’s Uzbekistan, where his regime has banned all opposition political parties, severely restricted freedom of expression, forced international human rights and NGOs out of the country, suppressed religious freedom, and annually taken as many as 2 million children out of school to engage in forced labor for the cotton harvest. Thousands of dissidents have been jailed, and many hundreds have been killed, some of them literally boiled alive.

In reaction to the Obama administration’s efforts, 20 human rights, labor, consumer, and other groups signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying, “We strongly urge you to oppose passage of the law and not to invoke this waiver.” The signers encouraged the administration “to stand behind your strong past statements regarding human rights abuses in Uzbekistan” and not move toward “business as usual” with that regime.

Signatories included the AFL-CIO, Amnesty International USA, and Human Rights Watch, as well as organizations with close ties to the foreign policy establishment like Freedom House and the International Crisis Group.

White House Claims

Despite evidence to the contrary, Secretary of State Clinton, who visited Uzbekistan on Oct. 23, has claimed that the regime was “showing signs of improving its human rights record and expanding political freedoms.” Similarly, when asked about the dictator’s claim that he was committed to leave a legacy of freedom and democracy for his grandchildren, a senior State Department official responded, “Yeah. I do believe him. I mean, he’s said several times that he’s committed to this. He’s made a speech last November where he talked about this.” In response to some skeptical follow-up questions by journalists, the official replied that “we still have some quite serious concerns about the situations on the human rights.” However, “we think that there is really quite an important opening now to work on that stuff, also work on developing civil society, which again President Karimov has expressed support for. So, yeah, I do take him at his word.”

A White House official told me that Obama had spoken directly to Karimov in recent weeks about human rights concerns, noting “he said more on democracy in that call than eight years of Bush administration dealings with Karimov.” The official also insisted that the Obama administration would condition future policy on the regime’s performance and that was made clear to the Uzbek leadership.
U.S. administrations, however, have rarely followed through on suspending aid when regimes fail to improve their human rights record. Despite assertions that military aid and cooperation can be used to improve a regime’s human rights record, it usually results in the opposite. Indeed, this line has been used for decades — most notoriously as a rationale for arming the death squads and murderous counterinsurgency units of the right-wing junta in El Salvador in the 1980s — and has been repeatedly shown to facilitate rather than limit the repression.

The Obama administration is making this controversial move in order to open the Central Asian nation to transit military equipment and other supplies in and out of Afghanistan, particularly after neighboring Kyrgyzstan looks likely to close its U.S. military base in Manas when the lease runs out in 2014. Potentially of greater consequence, Pakistan has threatened to cut off supply routes to U.S. forces in that landlocked country, so there is a scramble to look for alternatives. Unfortunately, as defenders of administration policy have put it, Afghanistan is surrounded by dictatorships, leaving them little choice but to provide assistance in return for transit rights.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Occupy Wall Street ‘Stands In Solidarity’ With Obama Front Group

Infowars
Paul Joseph Watson

MoveOn.org
Fears expressed by some that the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement is being hijacked by the Democratic Party establishment have intensified after the official OWS website announced that it “stands in solidarity” with MoveOn.org, a lobbying group for the Wall Street-backed Obama administration.
The front page of the http://occupywallst.org/ proudly announces that numerous union groups will be present in New York today to join demonstrators in marches taking place this afternoon.


 “Together we will protest this great injustice. We stand in solidarity with the honest workers of….MoveOn.org,” states the website, as well as listing numerous other organizations.
What is MoveOn.org?

MoveOn.org is a lobbying organization that routinely backs Democratic candidates. The group aggressively supported Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and is now “Perhaps the lead lobby organization for his policies….apart from Obama’s own Organizing for America,” reports Source Watch.

When MoveOn organized an online donation drive for Obama which raised $320,000, the Obama campaign responded in kind with the legally dubious action of paying MoveOn $18,000 in “credit card processing fees”.

The group also received a $5 million dollar donation from George Soros, who is a keen supporter.
Back in 2007, many leftists spoke of their betrayal by MoveOn.org after the group advocated Nancy Pelosi’s funding bill that actually prolonged the war in Iraq and prevented the troops being brought home.

“Join us on Wednesday to create a huge show of support for anti-Wall Street actions nationwide. Together, we’ll add hundreds of thousands of voices expressing our solidarity with the protests at Occupy Wall Street and across the country targeting the bankers who wrecked our economy,” states MoveOn.org’s website.

Friday, June 10, 2011

US to Sign Trade Agreement with Colombia, The Deadliest Place on Earth for Unionists

North American Interpress Service

Two days ago, on Jun. 7, Ana Fabricia Cordoba was killed in the Santa Cruz neighbourhood of Medellin, Colombia. A community leader with the women's organisation Ruta de Pacifica de Mujeres working with displaced workers, Cordoba had been receiving death threats, which she reported to the police and national government.

Her pleas were met with silence and finally with bullets.

Cordoba's untimely death coincides with renewed efforts by free-trade advocates in Washington to pressure the United States Congress to pass the long-debated U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a deal brokered in 2006 by then-U.S. President George W. Bush that is now inching closer to ratification by U.S. President Barack Obama and Colombia's recently elected Juan Manual Santos.

According to the White House fact sheet on the FTA – which is slated to be voted on before the August recess – the agreement would immediately slash 70 percent of tariffs on U.S. farm exports to Colombia, as well as phase out a host of other trade barriers, such as the Andean Price Bands, within a five to 15 year timeframe, allowing an unchecked flow of labour, goods and services between the two countries.

While U.S. exporters and multinationals are lobbying hard for the administration to sign and seal the deal, labour organisers and advocates have red-flagged Colombia's bloody track record of violence and impunity in order to hinder its passage.

"U.S. organised labour has raised a stink about the murder of unionists in opposition to the [FTA] but the real story of labour organising in Colombia is a positive one," Dan Griswold, director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies (CTPS) at the Cato Institute, said at a panel discussion in Washington Wednesday.

Referencing several studies by the CTPS on murder rates in Colombia, which calculate the homicide rate for the overall population to be six times higher than for union members, Griswold concluded that fears of rights violations and extra-judicial killings of union leaders should be chalked up to the general violence in the country and not used as an excuse to halt the FTA.

"Colombia contains 45 million upwardly mobile consumers of U.S. products, making them the third largest consumer of U.S. exports," Griswold said. "The economic advantages to zero-tariffs are indisputable and will result in a win-win situation for both sides."

No-win for unions, labour organisers

Counted a different way – from the perspective of millions of displaced labourers, families of murdered labour organisers, defenders of trade unions and proponents of agricultural workers' rights – the situation is akin to a slowly unfolding nightmare.

On Wednesday, the Brussels-based International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) released its annual survey of violations of trade union rights, which singled out Colombia as the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists.

The report documented 49 union member deaths in Colombia in 2010 alone, bringing the total number of slain unionists since 1986 to nearly 3,000. In fact, more than half the assassinated union organisers between 2005 and 2009 were Colombian.

"The rules in the FTA exist to strengthen protections for investors, to tilt the field towards business interests and away from workers," Karen Hansen-Kuhn, international programme director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), told IPS. "So there is every reason to believe that labour conditions will not improve after its implementation."

Manuela Chavez, the human rights officer for the Human and Trade Unions Rights Department at the ITUC, believes that the FTA will pave the way for multinational corporations (MNCs), whose quest for quick profits in the region is often coupled with scant regard for labour rights.

"Not only are [MNCs] killing trade unionists, they are also killing trade unions themselves," Chavez told IPS. "There is no more collective bargaining power and the rates of association in Colombia are terribly low – somewhere between five and seven percent. Allowing the FTA will be like giving the Colombian government an award for doing nothing for its workers."

Labor action plan: too little, too late?

To mute domestic outcry, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro and Colombian Ambassador Gabriel Silva presented a Labor Action Plan on Apr. 7, which has been blasted by organisations such as the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Education in the Americas Project (USLEAP) for falling "far short" of the impetus required to compel Santos to comply with international labour law.

An Apr. 13 USLEAP statement claimed, "the Plan does not require an actual reduction in violence against trade unionists or advances on impunity& does not address& human rights violations, militarization, impact on agriculture, internal displacement or the rights of Afro- Colombians, and provides no way to ensure compliance once the Colombia FTA is implemented."

"There is a historical pattern here that is quite disturbing," Adam Isacson, senior associate for regional security policy at the Washington Office on Latin America, told IPS.

"The year before the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), union member killings dropped precipitously. The year after it was ratified we saw a sharp increases in killings of unionists especially in Guatemala and Honduras." "Colombia still hasn't managed to investigate, try or punish even the most recent union killings – there is neither the political will nor the judicial capacity to ever get the trigger pullers, much less the actual people behind the killings, behind bars," he added.

Corporate-security collaboration

The fact that paramilitaries, government security forces and corporate interests are closely linked in Colombian society only compounds the crisis further.

Michael Evans, director of the Colombia Documentation Project at the National Security Archive – who recently exposed Chiquita Brands International for making millions of dollars worth of "security" payments to illegal armed groups in Colombia – told IPS that opponents of the FTA in the U.S. are seriously questioning the wisdom of a deal that nurtures economic ties with a country where "much of the economy remains in the hands of violent criminal gangs with a history of ties to Colombian politicians and security force members."

"Security is paramount for big multinational corporations operating in Colombia - Chiquita's payments to armed groups were simply [called] the "cost of doing business in Colombia"," Evans told IPS.

"Today, dozens of Colombian politicians, military officers and intelligence officials stand accused or have been convicted of collaboration with paramilitary forces responsible for thousands of killings, many of them unionists and left-leaning politicians," he added.

"In many cases, victims of paramilitary violence have waited more than 10 years for justice. We're now only beginning to understand how these illegal networks operated - the Chiquita Papers show us that strengthened commercial ties do not necessarily translate into greater respect for human rights or the rule of law."

Monday, February 28, 2011

Walker Bolting Capitol Windows NOW to Keep Workers from Passing Food to Those Inside

AFL-CIO
by Tula Connell, Feb 28, 2011

Editor's Note:  Austerity measure or a fire hazard?  Third world techniques introduced to a declining superpower. 

This from AFL-CIO Political Communications Director Eddie Vale who’s on the ground in Madison, Wis.
As we speak, Gov. Scott Walker & the Senate R’s are literally having the windows of the capital bolted shut to keep people from passing food into the building to the people inside.
Our attorneys are collecting affidavits from the people who witnessed this, along with people who have been illegally denied access to a public, government, building.
 We will be filing for a TRO [temporary restraining order] to open the Capitol.
It is a sad for democracy when Governor Walker and his R Senate allies are locking the people of Wisconsin out of their own state capitol.