| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: State of the Union
One final thing that Labor can do: it can point out that you can't eat stock certificates anymore than you can eat or drive social security checks. Whether we raise taxes to keep social security solvent or rely on private accounts, some portion of our children's efforts will be required to be redirected toward our retirement income. Now, if automation reigns supreme this is not a problem - as Norm would cite, and he may be right.
Anyway, what Labor can do is point out that if there is a problem, it is demographic, not financial, and that the solution is to make raising a child less scary. It can do that by vigorously proposing:
- a living wage tied to the number of children - both to save social security and to make abortion rare. Labor is losing strength and probably membership due to its alliance with the pro-choicers in the Democratic Party. Coming out for a living wage to lessen abortion and challenging the pro-lifers to support it may be a way to become relevant to its red state members who don't vote with it anymore.
- moving the responsibility for funding college and votech from the parents to the employer or union. One really scary thought that prevents parents from having additional children is the cost of such training. The H-1B Technical Skills Training Grant program was a step in this direction. It is time to advocate the next step.
Mike Bindner
Michael Bindner <bindner@IowaFiscalEquity.net> wrote:
Lynn,
One final thing. Regardless of what happens with Social Security, the AFL-CIO could try to bring more "ownership" into its investment operation (by directly investing in proportion to the employment of its members) and then making voting decisions with an eye to profit rather than simply protecting workers. United is failing partly because its board treated ownership like a glorified union contract, while Southwestern is succeeding because they do the opposite.
I have made several suggestions on both management structure and PAY EQUITY that I think will help. Tell the folks at the investment office to disregard what I say on social security (except for detailing the impact on workers of the way Bush proposes the stock be voted) and look at what can be done as far as these topics. See
There is no reason that union owned firms can't insist that managers be elected by the rank and file, or that innovation compensation be moved from salary to bonuses (both cash and stock) reflecting actual adjuricated results.
Mike
LynnRWilliams@aol.com wrote:
Marc -
I am sure that you know, but should there be any confusion, the labor movement is unalterably opposed to the privatization of the social security system. It has been and is by far the most important and effective antipoverty program in the United States.
The "crisis" is being engineered by those who want Wall St. to have an enormous opportunity to move into the system for its own enrichment, and those in the U.S. to whom the Administration has been giving back their taxes and who have lost whatever sense of social responsibility they may once have had.
There are many ways to solve the "crisis". Removing the income cap on those who contribute is one direct way. Seeing what happens with economic growth is another. Those who make the dire predictions do so on the basis that there will be little or no economic growth but economist Paul Krugman has pointed out this week that the same people, in predicting the great succes of private accounts, use estimates of stock market growth that have never been remotely achieved. If those same growth rates are used in predicting the future of the present system, Krugman says, there will be no "crisis" for generations to come.
The wealth being generated by dramatic increases in productivity is being distributed far too inequitably. Were it being shared more equally, the present level of payroll taxation would obviously provide a much more substantial income for the social security system.
I do not think we should be looking to the destruction of social programs as the basis on which to build an emloyee ownership based economic structure.
Lynn
|