Re kennykay: “Unions made this country.if it wern’t for unions, everybody would be working for minimum wage, which the republicans voted not to raise years ago.”

I agree that unions have done well for the wage earners in the U.S.  As for the Republican Party, it’s become painfully clear they are solely interested in one group and one group only - our wealthiest five percent.

wildflower:

I can’t speak for the Tea Party or the Republican Party, but would hope they would agree with us that corporations must be very circumspect in their dealings with sanctioned regimes.

And now that we’ve come full circle without ripping each others’ heads off, lets meet at another post sometime!

Re Rico, Suave: “Union “members” and corporation “members” are not the same. . . If corporations or any organization are doing business with Iran in contravention of sanctions, then they should obviously be punished.”

It seems to me we have come full circle and have come back to my original post where I was asking you about a comment you made in regard to unions and corporations. At the time, it seemed to me that you were equating unions with corporations and I was curious as to your rationale since from my perspective
there is a fundamental difference between unions and corporations.

As for the “Un-American” activities of some of these corporations, I agree our government needs to do something about these scroundels – along with their governing Board of Directors.  Clearly, they are undermining the security of this Nation.  Also, you mentioned in one your earlier posts that “truthdiggers” had been complaining about the conduct of many of these corporations, but where are the Republicans and the Tea Party Express in all of this? All things considered, you’d think Palin, Gingrich, Bachman would have taken these corporations under their wing by now advising them of the error of their ways.

wildflower:

Union “members” and corporation “members” are not the same. And, their remit is totally different. There is a significant amount of labor law governing organizing and running unions, which is completely without parallel in the law concerning public corporations. Also, many unions require employees of an organized company to be members, or at least pay dues (except in right-to-work states) whereas a corporation member can quit anytime by merely selling her stock.

If corporations or any organization are doing business with Iran in contravention of sanctions, then they should obviously be punished. Companies are busted all the time for infractions, as well they should be. No quarrel from me there. If a company continues to flout the rules, it could well be labeled a terrorist-abbetting organization, if the evidence is there. But if the government sends mixed messages as to what’s acceptable and what’s not, it’s the government’s fault, not corporations’. Corporations are not in business to make nice. They’re in business to make money. If Fiat is selling trucks to the Iranians based on some loophole in the sanctions regime, GM would be foolish not to try and compete for some of that business. If the government tells them to stop, and they don’t, they should be punished.

Yikes! Sorry, truthdiggers, for the double posting.

Re Rico, Suave: “I’m skeptical about union leaders speaking FOR their members. . . As for corporations, their “members” are the stockholders, whom the company must keep happy.”

I understand there are bad-bad-bad union leaders and bad-bad-bad corporate executives, but if in theory an organization’s “membership” and a corporation’s “membership” are the truly same, why does the U.S. government view and treat the two so differently – legally as well as politically?

For example, what do you think would happen if an organization like the NRA or a union directly or indirectly helped a country sanctioned by the U.S. Government or a group like the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards? Would our government just ignore it and consider it business as usual and no big deal? I don’t think so, Rico.  In all probability, the organization would be viewed as a terrorist organization and its membership would be held accountable.

But with corporations, such assistance is considered business as usual – and everybody is happy about it. The corporation’s “membership” is happy because their making money, the country sanctioned is happy because they are getting what they need, and the U.S. government is so happy it gives out rewards: 

“. . . For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions.

But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports . . . shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.

Many of those companies are enmeshed in the most vital elements of Iran’s economy. More than two-thirds of the government money went to companies doing business in Iran’s energy industry — a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a primary focus of the Obama administration’s proposed sanctions because it oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/middleeast/07sanctions.html

Re Rico, Suave: “I’m skeptical about union leaders speaking FOR their members. . . As for corporations, their “members” are the stockholders, whom the company must keep happy.”

I understand there are bad-bad-bad union leaders and bad-bad-bad corporate executives, but if in theory an organization’s “membership” and a corporation’s “membership” are the truly same, why does the U.S. government view and treat the two so differently – legally as well as politically?

For example, what do you think would happen if an organization like the NRA or a union directly or indirectly helped a country sanctioned by the U.S. Government or a group like the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards? Would our government just ignore it and consider it business as usual and no big deal? I don’t think so, Rico.  In all probability, the organization would be viewed as a terrorist organization and its membership would be held accountable.

But with corporations, such assistance is considered business as usual – and everybody is happy about it. The corporation’s “membership” is happy because their making money, the country sanctioned is happy because they are getting what they need, and the U.S. government is so happy it gives out rewards: 

“. . . For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions.

But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports . . . shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.

Many of those companies are enmeshed in the most vital elements of Iran’s economy. More than two-thirds of the government money went to companies doing business in Iran’s energy industry — a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a primary focus of the Obama administration’s proposed sanctions because it oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

Other companies are involved in auto manufacturing and distribution, another important sector of the Iranian economy with links to the Revolutionary Guards. One supplied container ship motors to IRISL, a government-owned shipping line that was subsequently blacklisted by the United States for concealing
military cargo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/middleeast/07sanctions.html

wildflower:

“unions are essentially cooperative type organizations that speak on behalf of it members who are real people”

Let’s agree to disagree on that statement.

I was a member of a labor union for thirty years. In 1992 the union leadership, against the expressed, explicit wishes of the overwhelming majority of the “real people” who were its members, endorsed Bill Clinton for President. Our leadership knew what was best for us they said. So you’ll pardon me if I’m skeptical about union leaders speaking FOR their members.

As for corporations, their “members” are the stockholders, whom the company must keep happy. I can’t imagine that BP stockholders were too happy about the spill. BP was properly punished on Wall Street, losing tens of billions in net worth in a few weeks’ time. Corporate leaders ignore their customers and stockholders at their peril.

Re Rico, Suave: “At the risk of sounding like I’m changing the subject, I wonder what that poll would look like if you substituted “unions” for “corporations”. (I can’t imagine People For asking THAT question.)”

You do seem to be changing the subject, but I suppose it’s partially my fault Anyway, I’m not sure I understand your reasoning in regard to your comment about unions and corporations. It seems to me that unions are essentially cooperative type organizations that speak on behalf of it members who are real people, Corporations, on the other hand, most often operate as a single body separate from its members.

wildflower:

I agree that corporate influence in government is rampant. But, at the risk of sounding like I’m changing the subject (!!!), I wonder what that poll would look like if you substituted “unions” for “corporations”. (I can’t imagine People For even asking THAT question.)

Also, the percentages in that survey are high because the questions are softballs and vague. How much is “too much” influence? What exactly would be the “limit” on spending? Hell, even I would agree with the majority to those questions.

I’ll agree to silence ExxonMobil if you agree to silence the SEIU. Deal?

Re Rico, Suave: “I was parodying the majority of truthdiggers who see a grand conspiracy between corporate America and the government to declare war on “the people”.”

So how would you describe what is happening, Rico?  Would the expression “hostile takeover” make you feel comfortable? Clearly, it’s not just a majority of truthdiggers who are concerned about this situation:

“Results of a poll conducted by Hart Research Associates for People For the American Way revealed that Americans across the political spectrum are intensely concerned about corporate influence in our democracy and disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. 

The poll reveals:

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today while 93% say that average citizens have too little influence.
 
95% agree that “Corporations spend money on politics mainly to buy influence in government and elect people who are favorable to their financial interests.”  (74% strongly agree)

 
85% disagree that “Corporations should be able to spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of elections because the Constitution protects freedom of speech.”  (63% strongly disagree)
 
93% agree that “There should be clear limits on how much money corporations can spend to influence the outcome of an election.”  (74% strongly agree)

 
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount U.S. corporations can spend to influence elections.
 
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.

http://www.commondreams.org/print/57536

wildflower:

I was being facetious. I was parodying the majority of truthdiggers who see a grand conspiracy between corporate America and the government to declare war on “the people”.

Of course a Nader presidency would have looked different than a Bush one!

Re Rico: What difference does it make who’s in Congress?

Who is sitting where in our way of governing always matters, Rico.  If Al Gore or Ralph Nader or Ron Paul had been elected President, do you think they would have instigated the great “WMD Lie” or conspired like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to create these costly for-profit “alternative” intelligence units that we’re reading about in today’s Washington Post?  .  .  .  I don’t think so.

And it obviously mattered in the extension of these unemployment benefits.  Like Scheer says in “Grinches”: “How can they defend having supported Republican President George W. Bush giving $180 billion to AIG but draw the line when a Democratic president seeks to spend one-fifth of that amount helping millions of victims of the crisis that AIG was so instrumental in causing?”

wildflower:

Do you believe that the government runs the economy? I thought evil corporations ran the economy. Or do you believe they are one and the same thing? In which case, what difference does it make who’s in Congress?

And, how many new jobs will extending unemployment benefits create? Despite your antipathy toward Senator Kyl, statistical evidence supports his view. If it didn’t, there would be no reason not to make unemployment payments permanent. We could all live blissfully off the government tit til the day we die.

Work is for suckers.

Just to add to the conversation that this is a global unenployment problem. Here’s a video from the UN that makes the case.The UN International Labor Organization (ILO), says 2009 had the highest amount of unemployment since the great depression with 34 million having lost their jobs in 2009 as a result of the global economic crisis http://www.newslook.com/videos/229459-un-unemployment-at-record-levels-globally?autoplay=true

Where are the articles about Lynne Stewart being resentenced to ten years? See http://www.blackagendareport.com  and http://www.lynnestewart.org

Re PZS: “Objectors to the extension cited concerns about the deficit and, in the words of Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, fears that “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” 

Like Dean Baker says there is a good reason to be “singling” out some of these incompetent Senate Republicans:

“The reason for singling out the Republicans in the Senate, among all the people whose incompetence contributed to the economic crisis, is that they have decided to obstruct the extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. People should recognize the irony in this story.

The unemployed . . . had been working until the economy collapsed. They are unemployed because the people who were running the economy - including the Republican senators with oversight responsibilities—were incompetent.?

So now we have Republican senators who share the blame for an economic collapse, drawing healthy salaries and generous health care and pension benefits, telling the unemployed workers who were victims of their incompetence, that they can’t get $300 a week in benefits. This is Washington at its best.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-senators-who-gave-us_b_651864.html

PH:

Particularly the “intelligence” budget:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/national-security-inc/print/

Peace.

P.S.  Love your avatar!

Fund it out of the military budget.