Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Workers, Unchecked: The Case for Card Check This Labor Day


 
 August 27, 2024
Facebook

LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

Photograph Source: Jeffrey Phelps

The process of union certification is a critical area of labor rights, acting as a precursor to collective bargaining. One method, card check, simplifies this process by allowing workers to express their desire for union representation through majority sign-up. Because it reduces opportunities for employer interference and expedites union certification, card check has come under significant fire from those who oppose unions.

Card check is a quick and efficient way for workers to indicate whether they want to be represented by a union. Workers who desire a union simply sign authorization cards indicating their support. If a majority (typically 50 percent plus one) sign cards, the union is recognized as the employees’ representative, and the newly authorized union and its members begin negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. Card check certification allows workers to move quickly from establishing majority support for their union to meeting their employer at the bargaining table.

Card Check vs. Secret Ballot

Card check is an option for union certification in the US, but there is a catch. While private sector employers can voluntarily recognize their employees’ union based on card check, they are not obligated to do so; employers have the option to petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) even if the majority of workers have signed cards in support of the union. The NLRB adjudicates the matter by running a secret ballot election to determine whether the majority of those eligible for the bargaining unit support the union.The secret ballot election typically involves a prolonged campaign period, which gives employers ample time to interfere.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives the NLRB jurisdiction over union certification in most of the private sector. Though some state and local card check laws are written to apply to all employers in that state or locality, those laws are preempted by the NLRA for the vast majority of private-sector workers. Since the NLRA does not apply to government workers, however, public sector certification requirements can and do vary by state and locality.

The distinction between card check and secret ballot elections may seem inconsequential, but it makes a significant difference in union certification success rates. Evidence from Canada highlights the difference in outcomes. Canada shares a similar legal framework with the United States regarding firm-level union elections, but allows provinces more flexibility with respect to certification rules, even in the private sector. This makes the Canadian experience a helpful case study for understanding how variations in the certification process can influence unionization outcomes. Johnson (20002002) estimated that mandating secret ballot elections for union certification in parts of Canada corresponded with a reduction in successful certifications, and that by 1995, 17 to 26 percent of the Canada-US union density gap could be attributed to union election rules in the US. Other researchers — Bentham in 1999Godard in 2000, and Slinn in 2004 — found similar relationships between card check and increased certification success rates for unions in Canada. Canadian union certification elections typically take place between five and ten days after being filed, while in the US there is often a gap of several months between the petition filing and the election. This reduces the likelihood of employer interference in Canada relative to the US, and suggests that a switch to default card check may have an even bigger effect on union certification success in the US than in Canada.

Meanwhile, there is some evidence from the public sector that card check supports union organizing in the US context. Illinois enacted a statutory amendment requiring employers to recognize unions based on card checks in 2003. Gely and Chandler (2010)compared public sector union certification activity in Illinois with neighboring Ohio before and after the Illinois law went into effect. They found that the Illinois legislation prompted card-check-oriented shifts in union organizing, with especially dramatic changes in organizing activity involving smaller bargaining units. This card-check effect is especially notable because ensuring that smaller units are able to form unions has been an ongoing challenge. Unions may be more reluctant to direct limited resources toward organizing drives at workplaces with fewer workers because it is harder for the union to recoup the organizing costs from the relatively limited dues base. By making it easier and more accessible for workers to translate their majority support into an actual union, card check certification could help employees from smaller bargaining units access the benefits of unionization at a rate more comparable to their peers in larger bargaining units.

Secret Ballots Are Not More Democratic

Some have asserted that secret ballot elections are an inherently more democratic method of certifying a union. They are not. Secret ballot and majority sign-on (of which card check is a form) are both ways for a group of individuals to determine and communicate majority support for some effort or idea. In this case, the group doing the deciding is supposed to be the workers and only the workers. Though US law allows management to be a non-voting party to union certification, management does not get to vote or sign a card because it is not their decision to make; only members of the potential bargaining unit are eligible to make that decision. This right is also recognized internationally. Article 23 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rightsaffirms workers’ right to form and join unions; it does not say, “Workers may form and join unions only if their employer also agrees.”

Of these two ways of determining and communicating the will of the majority in a bargaining unit, secret ballot elections provide more opportunity for management—a party that isn’t supposed to get a say in the decision—to put its thumb on the scale. If a majority of workers have already signed cards declaring their support for the union, asking them to also do so via secret ballot serves to second-guess their decision-making capacity. It is tantamount to asking, “But are you sure?” in response to the majority making a decision that management may not like, which is not a democratic practice. Employers who demand secret ballot elections even after most of their workers have signed union cards are behaving anti-democratically. The insistence on secret ballot elections has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with employers trying to undermine unionization efforts.

Why Bosses Prefer Ballots

Those who oppose card check certification often express concern that workers will be pressured by other workers to sign cards. They maintain that the decision to sign a card is more likely to be made under duress compared with voting by secret ballot. This line of argument falls short in several ways.

First, both secret ballots and signed cards may reflect pressure exerted on the individuals casting their votes or signing. Not all sources of pressure are created equal, however. In a non-union workplace, the power dynamics favor the employer over the worker. Most workplaces have a hierarchical structure that gives bosses and managers wide-ranging discretionary authority to hire and fire, shape job roles, set work pace, alter company policy, and otherwise direct the working environment. It would therefore be a mistake to assume that pressure from co-workers and pressure from an employer are equally threatening to the decision-making process of workers. To do so ignores the considerable power imbalance between workers and their bosses; this imbalance makes pressure from an employer a far bigger threat.

Employers don’t prefer secret ballots because they want their employees to be able to make pressure-free decisions about the union. Employers prefer secret ballots because secret ballots give employers more opportunity to exert pressure — even though, while parties to the decision, they are not legally supposed to have a say in the decision. It’s important to be clear-eyed about which source of pressure poses a greater threat to a worker’s free and uncoerced decision-making. If we care about workers’ ability to make uncoerced decisions about unions, and secret ballot elections are more likely to introduce pressure from a more concerning source, it makes sense to favor card check certification.

Secret ballot certification also falls short in another, more fundamental way. In “What’s More Democratic Than a Secret Ballot? The Case for Majority Sign-up”, Gordon Lafer makes the case that deciding to form a union and voting to elect someone to public office are fundamentally different acts, and therefore deserve different considerations with respect to democratic procedure. Elections for public office are most people’s reference point for democracy, but Lafer argues that it’s the wrong analogy for union certification. He writes:

“The decision to form a union is not equivalent to the choice of which candidate should occupy a preexisting slot in the government. It is rather an attempt to change the form of government in the workplace, from one-party rule to something slightly more democratic.”

Deciding to form a union is a choice to create a representative structure independent of the firm’s managing authority – and that is potentially at cross purposes with it. Organizing a union is usually a delicate matter because employers are fiercely committed to preserving the current default system, under which the employer exercises unilateral rule. Workers also know that even if they succeed in changing the system, they will remain largely subject to the authority of the employer who opposed their efforts.

Forming a union is a more fundamentally collective enterprise than voting for a representative to public office; workers do not form unions as atomized individuals independent of their co-workers. Instead, employees who back a unionization effort are signaling sufficient confidence in their co-workers to want to come together with them and wield more power as a group vis-a-vis their boss. Signing a union card can be understood as workers’ pledging to each other their commitment to work together to secure a fair contract. As Lafer notes, acknowledgment of this commitment is reflected in the fact that one of the questions workers tend to ask themselves when deciding whether to support the union is, “Are enough of us on board to make this a worthwhile endeavor?” Secret ballot elections, then, may serve to individualize a fundamentally collective action.

The Future for Card Check

There have been pushes to codify unions’ right to use card check certification in the US. As noted earlier, some states have already done so, and though their efforts are preempted by the NLRA in most of the private sector, state and local laws can make card check the default for some or all public sector employees in those jurisdictions. At the federal level, the doomed Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 would have amended the NLRA to require immediate union certification if the majority of workers signed cards indicating their support for the union.

There have also been some encouraging certification-related rulings by the NLRB in the last few years. The NLRB’s 2023 ruling in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC shortened the available window for management’s anti-union campaigning by requiring employers to either voluntarily recognize the union based on card check or file for an election within two weeks. Prior to the Cemex decision, employers could simply reject authorization cards as valid proof of a worker majority and put the onus on the union to file an election petition with the NLRB. The resulting delays gave employers that much more opportunity to bust the union.

The NLRB also published its Fair Choice–Employee Voice Final Rule this year. Among other things, the rule restores the “voluntary recognition bar,” which ensures that unions certified via card check and voluntarily recognized by the employer aren’t challenged in short order, allowing them to move on to negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. The rule reverses a 2020 NLRB decisionthat required a 45-day challenge period following voluntary recognition, during which any employee could demand that the NLRB relitigate the union’s recognition and impose an election instead.

While the recent NLRB edicts have helped, the union certification process remains onerous for workers. Even the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 (commonly known as the PRO Act), often held up as the gold standard in labor law reform with many important pro-worker changes, leaves the flawed elections process mostly in place. Though the PRO Act does tackle some of the worst employer delay and obstruction tactics, the closest it comes to enshrining card check certification is by imposing it as a penalty on employers who fail to abide by tightened election rules.

This Labor Day, workers deserve to see lawmakers tackle one of the key areas of policy hindering their right to organize unions. Federal lawmakers should move to not only codify card check as a valid means of union certification, but also change the laws that give employers undue standing and ability to interfere in union organizing. Lawmakers should also ensure that public sector employees – who are not covered by the NLRA – have the same rights to join and form unions as their peers in the private sector. State and local governments that have not already done so should also move to validate union certification based on card check. Such provisions would immediately benefit workers in the public sector. They would also act as an additional potential legal backstop in case federal protections are weakened in a way that gives state and local governments more jurisdiction over private sector union certification.

As discussions around labor rights continue, ensuring that card check certification is recognized and supported remains crucial to empowering workers and strengthening their ability to advocate for fair treatment in the workplace. Given the evidence of its effectiveness, policymakers at every level of government should resist flawed and bad-faith arguments and instead prioritize this crucial pro-worker policy.

This first appeared on CEPR.

Hayley Brown is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.  Sylvia Allegretto is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

 

Nigeria: Resident Doctors Begin Nationwide Strike Over Abduction of Colleague

26 August 2024

The resident doctors embarked on a nationwide strike after their earlier protest march in all tertiary hospitals failed to secure the release of the colleague from abductors' captivity.

The Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) has commenced a seven-day warning strike over the abduction of their colleague, Ganiyat Popoola, who has been held captive for eight months.

The President of NARD, Dele Abdullahi, announced the strike during a virtual emergency meeting of the National Executive Council of the association at midnight on Monday.

"The strike is total, and there will be no concessions or emergency care during this period. All centres, both federal and state, should ensure full compliance, even as proper handover of patients to consultants should be done," Mr Abdullahi said.

He noted that any centre that fails to comply with the strike directive would be fined heavily and denied participation in the forthcoming NARD annual general meeting .

Members of the association across the country had earlier staged a protest march in all tertiary hospitals to demand the release of Mrs Popoola.

Mrs Popoola, a registrar in the Department of Ophthalmology at the National Eye Centre, Kaduna, was abducted in December 2023 alongside her husband and nephew.

While her husband has been released after a ransom was reportedly paid, Mrs Popoola and her nephew remain in captivity.

The kidnappers reportedly demanded a N60 million ransom to release the doctor's husband.

NARD's directive, nationwide protest

On 14 August, NARD issued a 26 August ultimatum for the release of the victim.

At a press briefing in Abuja, the association decried the government's "inaction" over the abduction.

It resolved to organise a national press conference and a nationwide protest march in all tertiary hospitals to demand Mrs Popoola's release.

When the incident happened, Mr Abdullahi said the association notified all security agencies, the federal government, and the Kaduna State Government but has seen no significant action.

He noted that the association communicated its decision to the Nigerian Medical Association, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, the Chairman of the House Committee on Health, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, and the Kaduna State Government.

"It's appalling that in a country where we want healthcare providers to stay, one of us has been kidnapped for over seven months and 17 days without any form of relief or directive on how the rescue mission will proceed," Mr Abdullahi said.

Insecurity affects health workers

Nigeria has been grappling with armed conflicts such as terrorism and banditry, among other issues.

The Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition (SHCC) identified 19 incidents of violence against health workers in Nigeria in 2023.

It also identified 43 incidents in 2022, compared to 56 in 2021, in which 37 health workers were kidnapped, seven others were killed, and health supplies were looted from pharmacies and health centres.


UN Warns Libya Faces Economic Collapse Amid Central Bank Crisis


A view of the Central Bank of Libya in Tripoli, Libya, August 26, 2024.
 (Reuters)

27 August 2024 
AD Ù€ 22 Safar 1446 AH


The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) issued a statement late on Monday expressing deep concern "over the deteriorating situation in Libya resulting from unilateral decisions."

Disputes over control of Libya's Central Bank have raised alarms about the potential misuse of the country's financial resources.

"UNSMIL is convening an emergency meeting for all parties involved in the Central Bank of Libya crisis in order to reach a consensus based on political agreements, applicable laws, and the principle of the central bank's independence," the statement said.

The UN mission has called for the suspension of unilateral decisions, the lifting of force majeure on oil fields, the halting of escalations and use of force, and the protection of Central Bank employees.

Libya's economy is heavily reliant on oil revenue, and there have been moves to impose force majeure on oil fields, effectively cutting off the country's primary source of income.

Earlier on Monday, Libya's eastern-based administration ordered the closure of oilfields in eastern Libya, which account for almost all the country's production, halting both production and exports after tensions flared over the Central Bank's leadership.

There has been no confirmation of these actions from the Government of National Unity (GNU) in Tripoli or from the National Oil Corp (NOC), which controls the country's oil resources.

WAR  IS ECOCIDE

Yemen Warns of Environmental Disaster as Oil Tanker Faces Explosion


Sounion oil tanker (Reuters)

Aden: Ali Rabih
27 August 2024 
AD Ù€ 22 Safar 1446 AH


The Yemeni government has issued a warning about a looming environmental disaster in the Red Sea, where the Greek oil tanker “Sounion” is at risk of exploding or sinking due to ongoing fires.

The fires started after the Iranian-backed Houthi militants attacked the tanker last Wednesday, as part of their escalating maritime assaults, claiming to support Palestinians in Gaza.

The warning coincides with reports from the European maritime mission (ASPIDES), which noted that the fires on the tanker, carrying around one million barrels of oil, are still burning in an area between Yemen and Eritrea in the southern Red Sea.

ASPIDES announced on Monday via platform X that fires have been burning on the “Sounion” tanker since last Friday, with no signs of an oil spill yet.

The mission also shared images on Sunday showing flames and thick smoke rising from at least five spots on the ship’s deck, including part of its upper structure.

The tanker was attacked by Houthi militants on August 21, causing its engines to fail and leaving it adrift. A French warship from ASPIDES evacuated the 29 crew members, mostly Filipinos, to Djibouti.

Houthi-released footage shows the group boarding the tanker, placing explosives near the tank openings, and detonating them remotely, which ignited the fires. There are concerns that the tanker could sink or explode, leading to a major oil spill.

Yemeni Information Minister Muammar Al-Eryani warned of the looming environmental disaster after revealing that the attack on Sounion was the ninth such strike on oil tankers in the Red Sea since last November.

The tanker is carrying 150,000 tons of crude oil.

Al-Eryani said the Houthi attacks caused the tanker to drift, disabled its engines, and led to the evacuation of its crew, leaving the vessel at risk of sinking or exploding just 85 nautical miles from Yeman’s Hodeidah port city.

He accused Houthis of “systematic terrorism” that could trigger an unprecedented environmental, economic, and humanitarian crisis.

F-35 BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE

Billions deficit undermines UK F-35 existence, Tempest is a priority

Experts are currently examining the future of the F-35 program in Britain amidst ongoing defense budget concerns. With an anticipated budget shortfall of £22 billion and discussions of potential defense budget cuts, there’s also the matter of prioritizing the Tempest under the Global Air Combat Program [GCAP]. 

British F-35 fighter jet
Photo credit: Royal Navy

Although the voices advocating for the reduction of the F-35 program in the UK are still relatively quiet, they are expected to grow louder over time. Defense analyst Peter Suciu highlights warnings from the UK Ministry of Defence that such cuts could pose a threat to national security.

Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the British Army, recently spoke to the media and expressed strong concerns about London’s potential withdrawal from the US F-35 fighter program. He termed such a decision “madness,” equating it to creating a “white elephant.” “Considering the massive investment already made in the Carrier Strike Group program, it would be absurd not to continue investing to ensure we have enough advanced aircraft. Otherwise, the entire initiative might end up being a white elephant.” 

Still unbuilt, Tempest is losing ground to the F-35
Photo credit: Wikipedia

But it’s not just the defense budget cuts that are alarming. Vital defense projects, such as modernizing equipment, enhancing cyber defenses, or acquiring new military assets, could face delays or cancellations. This would severely impact the military’s ability to keep pace with technological advancements.

Budget constraints often lead to fewer training and readiness exercises, which can hamper the military’s ability to swiftly and effectively tackle threats. There’s even a chance the government might consider downsizing the military, resulting in fewer troops and resources, thereby limiting the UK’s capacity to project power and handle crises. 

A tighter defense budget might also compel the UK to cut back on its commitments to international alliances such as NATO. This could impact its global standing and diminish its role in international security operations. Additionally, inadequate defense funding could leave the UK more exposed to external threats like cyber-attacks, terrorism, and military aggression from hostile nations.

F-35's helmet sights: A key advantage over the F-22 in visual combat
Photo credit: Royal Navy

While this forms a crucial aspect for Britain, the potential downsizing of the F-35 program poses a formidable challenge not only for Britain but for the US as well. The F-35 is integral to NATO’s collective defense strategy. A reduction in British participation could diminish NATO’s overall air power, considering the UK is one of the most significant and capable partners in the program. This may strain the alliance’s capacity to project power and perform joint operations efficiently. 

The costs associated with the F-35 program are distributed among the participating nations. Should the UK scale back its involvement, the US might have to bear a larger portion of the expenses, possibly intensifying the financial load on the US defense budget.

The UK plays a crucial role in the F-35 program, contributing to production, technology development, and maintaining supply chains. Any reduction in UK involvement could disrupt these supply chains, drive up production costs, and potentially delay aircraft deliveries. 

South Korean F-35A
Photo credit: USAF

This scenario has broader geopolitical and strategic implications. The F-35 program transcends aircraft; it’s about fortifying the bonds between the US and its allies. A decrease in British participation could signal a weakening of the UK defense relationship and might embolden adversaries, seeing it as a sign of disunity among Western powers.

The F-35 isn’t just a standalone fighter; it’s designed to operate within an integrated network, sharing crucial data and intelligence with other F-35s and allied systems. Should the UK cut back its fleet, it could weaken this network capability, impacting joint missions and overall interoperability. 

In summary, the US will encounter both strategic and operational hurdles if the UK exits the F-35 program. This would require significant adjustments in how the US and its allies plan and execute joint military operations. 

British F-35 crashed due to one of the F135's air intake blank
Photo credit: Navy Lookout

The initial plans aimed for the UK to acquire 138 fifth-generation multirole fighters, including those meant for the air wings of its two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. However, so far, only 48 of these aircraft have been ordered, with 34 already delivered. Unfortunately, one was damaged beyond repair while it was operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Mediterranean in 2021. 

In the event of a Labour government, the Ministry of Defence might have to choose between continuing with the F-35 or moving forward with the future Tempest, the planned sixth-generation fighter that is part of the UK-led Global Air Combat Program [GCAP].

The UK has teamed up with Italy and Japan on the Global Combat Air Program [GCAP]. Much like the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance [NGAD] initiative, GCAP envisions a cohesive system that merges a manned fighter jet with an array of unmanned aerial systems [UAS] or drones. 

Riyadh wants a cutting-edge fighter and has turned to London - GCAP fighter
Photo credit: BAE Systems

Moreover, BAE Systems highlighted that over 1,000 suppliers are involved with the GCAP program, and about 3,500 individuals are directly working on the aircraft’s development. This creates a ripple effect, supporting an impressive 16,000 jobs across the UK. With these factors in mind, it’s becoming evident that the UK might scale back on the F-35 to expedite its Tempest fighter jet project. Changing this course might prove challenging for policymakers.


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Harris, Obama and the Cost of Running for President While Black

Opinion
Erika D. Smith
Bloomberg
Tuesday - 27 August 2024

For all the talk about how Kamala Harris may become the first woman of color elected president, one person most definitely isn’t talking about it: Kamala Harris.

Not on the campaign trail, where her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, continues to lob racist and sexist attacks her way. And not in the 38-minute speech she gave at last week’s Democratic National Convention. When the vice president officially accepted her party’s presidential nomination, she didn’t directly mention her race, gender or the historic nature of her candidacy.

Whether this is a political calculation, a personal calculation, or both, it says something about this moment in America. Two decades after Barack Obama gave his now famous keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, forever changing the national discourse around race and power, the candidate long seen as his political heir is willing to let the fullness of her identity speak for itself — and people of color and women are OK with that.

“The world will never let you forget that you are a Black woman, so she doesn't need to profess or wear a sticker on her shirt,” explained Harris’ longtime friend, California Senator Laphonza Butler, who is the only Black woman serving in the upper chamber.

I heard similar statements from Democrats on the convention floor last week, including from Harris’ fellow members of the historically Black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha and fellow graduates of her alma mater, Howard University. Other women of various races and ethnicities in suffragist, white outfits said the same, while also praising Harris’ advocacy of reproductive rights. All of them felt proud and seen.

But Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have decided to campaign on universal values of freedom and opportunity, particularly for the middle-class, rather than narrower pitches tethered to identity politics. They’re promising to be leaders for “all Americans” in a patriotic, pluralistic democracy.

“I see an America where we hold fast to the fearless belief that built our nation and inspired the world,” Harris said in her acceptance speech, drawing cheers. “That here, in this country, anything is possible. That nothing is out of reach. An America where we care for one another, look out for one another and recognize that we have so much more in common than what separates us. That none of us — none of us — has to fail for all of us to succeed.”

This is progress, I think. But it’s also a twisted kind of progress.

On the one hand, political candidates no longer need to stuff themselves into demographic boxes, proving they are Black enough, for example, to get elected. On the other hand, those same candidates can no longer explain what it means to be Black — or a woman — without risking losing an election. This a double-edged sword that has long existed in American politics, and it has only grown sharper over the past two decades.
Harris has not done that, and that’s very smart of her.”

Obama also tried to avoid “playing the race card” — so much so that he was sometimes criticized, particularly by Black people, for trying to avoid acknowledging race and racism altogether. Nevertheless, as a freshman senator from Illinois, his soaring oratory inspired Americans of all backgrounds to participate in the “politics of hope,” rather than the politics of cynicism and division.

“There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America,” he said in 2004. “There’s the United States of America.”

How Harris chooses to talk, or most likely not talk, about race and gender will be telling in a close presidential race. It could make all the difference as she and Walz try to win over new and independent voters in crucial swing states.

During Harris’ last run for president four years ago, she modeled her campaign logo after one used by Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman to seek the Oval Office. When she accepted the nomination for vice president later that same year, she proudly praised and compared herself to other Black women who broke glass ceilings.

Times have changed, though. Rather than being loud and proud, the thinking in 2024 encourages politicians — to quote Jools Lebron, my favorite TikTok influencer of the moment — to be very mindful, very demure about their identities.

While many voters now accept that race and gender-based inequities exist, they also don’t want to hear about them because they also believe they no longer matter as much. A recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 47% of Americans are indifferent to the gender of the president.

I’m still skeptical. And the Harris campaign clearly is too.

Harris is now doing a two-step that may be familiar to Obama and is built, perhaps, on a lesson from her late mother, Shyamala Gopalan, that she shared in her DNC speech. “Never let anyone tell you who you are,” Harris’ mother told her. “You show them who you are.”

Bloomberg
Opinion

America 2024: The Elections that Will End the ‘Undecided Voter’ Lie




Eyad Abu Shakra
Tuesday - 27 August 2024

The Democratic National Convention ended yesterday, weeks after the Republican National Convention concluded.

To many observers, neither of the two conventions brought any surprises, even after the Democrats’ candidate, President Joe Biden, withdrew from the race and the vast majority of his delegates shifted their support to Vice President Kamala Harris. Indeed, the DNC amounted to little more than a coronation of Harris, with figures endorsing her as the candidate to win the party’s battle against the Republican nominee, former US president Donald Trump, in November.

No reasonable analyst can disagree, after both conventions concluded, with the claim that the American electorate has never had to choose between such starkly different candidates.

The contrast between the two parties, their candidates, platforms, broad values, political cultures, and ethical standards has never been as overwhelmingly clear as it is now. This extreme divergence is evident in everything from the speeches of party figures at the two conventions to the "positions" both parties’ supporters share on social media.
This should be enough to dispel the lie of "undecided voters."

Indeed, if any voter remains confused or undecided, despite everything they heard and saw in Milwaukee and Chicago, then they quite frankly do not deserve the privilege of exercising their right to vote in an election that determines who will become the most powerful leader in the world!

Throughout my life, I have learned a great deal about the pivotal historical moments that have redefined the "identities" of the two major American parties.

I learned about the Democrats' rural base, in the "Cotton Belt" and "Tobacco Belt" of the Southern states, where owners of large agricultural estates relied on cheap labor of slaves brought to the country from Africa. On the other hand, industrial, financial, and scientific revolutions in the cities of the North and Northeast produced one Republican leader after another, elite after elite, who were unequivocal about their conviction that a "strong central" state serves the national interest.

This "America" underwent decisive turning points that redefined the two parties’ political identities beginning with the Civil War (1861–1865), which the federal government of Republican President Abraham Lincoln waged against insurrectionist Southern states that sought to perpetuate slavery under the guise of "states' rights" within a federal polity- the fundamental premise of Southern Democrats’ argument for secession.

This war translated, in blood and arms, the difference between the Republican notion of a "strong central government and its legitimacy" and the Democrats' prioritization of "states' rights." After the Southern secessionists led by conservative Democrats were defeated, Republican support in the Southern states continued to wane until the mid-20th century.

This period witnessed the First and Second World Wars, as well as the Great Depression (1929–1939), which spurred the New Deal that crystallized a new approach to the economy that incorporated limited "state intervention" in the economy. Following the New Deal, the intensification of the Cold War in the 1950s, and the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s, a geographical, political, and ideological realignment reshaped the two parties.

The conservative Southern Democrats gradually dissipated as the Democratic Party transformed into a "centrist liberal" and anti-racist party that was broadly supported by minorities and people of color, and whose voters were concentrated primarily in cities, particularly in the North and West.

Conversely, the Republican Party no longer represents "The Party of Abraham Lincoln." Indeed, the presence of “liberal” Republicans in the Northern states has diminished, except in rural areas and the Rust Belt (where unskilled labor unemployment is prevalent). The Republicans are now the party of the "white Christian right," with its economic, social, racial, and religious conservatism allowing it to dominate the Southern states.

The conventions in Milwaukee and Chicago left this matter beyond doubt. Donald Trump accused his Democratic opponent of being a dangerous "communist," while 40 out of the 44 key figures from Trump's previous administration, including his former Vice President Mike Pence, did not attend the Republican convention, laying the political contradictions to bare.

Yes, there is no longer any ambiguity, and there is certainly no justification for confusion or indecision.

Monday, August 26, 2024

Why Poverty Reduction Under Capitalism is a Myth

 

 August 27, 2024

Facebook

Abandoned building in downtown Detroit. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

From its beginnings, the capitalist economic system produced both critics and celebrants, those who felt victimized and those who felt blessed. Where victims and critics developed analyses, demands, and proposals for change, beneficiaries, and celebrants developed alternative discourses defending the system.

Certain kinds of arguments proved widely effective against capitalism’s critics and in obtaining mass support. These became capitalism’s basic supportive myths. One such myth is that capitalism created prosperity and reduced poverty.

Capitalists and their biggest fans have long argued that the system is an engine of wealth creation. Capitalism’s early boosters, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and likewise capitalism’s early critics such as Karl Marx, recognized that fact. Capitalism is a system built to grow.

Because of market competition among capitalist employers, “growing the business” is necessary, most of the time, for it to survive. Capitalism is a system driven to grow wealth, but wealth creation is not unique to capitalism. The idea that only capitalism creates wealth or that it does so more than other systems is a myth.

What else causes wealth production? There are a whole host of other contributors to wealth. It’s never only the economic system, whether capitalist or feudal or slave or socialist. Wealth creation depends on all kinds of circumstances in history (such as raw materials, weather, or inventions) that determine if and how fast wealth is created. All of those factors play roles alongside that of the particular economic system in place.

When the USSR imploded in 1989, some claimed that capitalism had “defeated” its only real competitor—socialism—proving that capitalism was the greatest possible creator of wealth. The “end of history” had been reached, it was said, at least in relation to economic systems. Once and for all, nothing better than capitalism could be imagined, let alone achieved.

The myth here is a common mistake and grossly overused. While wealth was created in significant quantities over the last few centuries as capitalism spread globally, that does not prove it was capitalism that caused the growth in wealth. Maybe wealth grew despite capitalism. Maybe it would have grown faster with some other system. Evidence for that possibility includes two important facts. First, the fastest economic growth (as measured by GDP) in the 20th century was that achieved by the USSR. And second, the fastest growth in wealth in the 21st century so far is that of the People’s Republic of China. Both of those societies rejected capitalism and proudly defined themselves as socialist.

Another version of this myth, especially popular in recent years, claims capitalism deserves credit for bringing many millions out of poverty over the last 200 to 300 years. In this story, capitalism’s wealth creation brought everyone a higher standard of living with better food, wages, job conditions, medicine and health care, education, and scientific advancements. Capitalism supposedly gave huge gifts to the poorest among us and deserves our applause for such magnificent social contributions.

The problem with this myth is like that with the wealth-creation myth discussed above. Just because millions escaped poverty during capitalism’s global spread does not prove that capitalism is the reason for this change. Alternative systems could have enabled an escape from poverty during the same period of time, or for more people more quickly, because they organized production and distribution differently.

Capitalism’s profit focus has often held back the distribution of products to drive up their prices and, therefore, profits. Patents and trademarks of profit-seeking businesses effectively slow the distribution of all sorts of products. We cannot know whether capitalism’s incentive effects outweigh its slowing effects. Claims that, overall, capitalism promotes rather than slows progress are pure ideological assertions. Different economic systems—capitalism included—promote and delay development in different ways at different speeds in their different parts.

Capitalists and their supporters have almost always opposed measures designed to lessen or eliminate poverty. They blocked minimum wage laws often for many years, and when such laws were passed, they blocked raising the minimums (as they have done in the United States since 2009). Capitalists similarly opposed laws outlawing or limiting child labor, reducing the length of the working day, providing unemployment compensation, establishing government pension systems such as Social Security, providing a national health insurance system, challenging gender and racial discrimination against women and people of color, or providing a universal basic income. Capitalists have led opposition to progressive tax systems, occupational safety and health systems, and free universal education from preschool through university. Capitalists have opposed unions for the last 150 years and likewise restricted collective bargaining for large classes of workers. They have opposed socialist, communist, and anarchist organizations aimed at organizing the poor to demand relief from poverty.

The truth is this: to the extent that poverty has been reduced, it has happened despite the opposition of capitalists. To credit capitalists and capitalism for the reduction in global poverty is to invert the truth. When capitalists try to take credit for the poverty reduction that was achieved against their efforts, they count on their audiences not knowing the history of fighting poverty in capitalism.

Recent claims that capitalism overcame poverty are often based on misinterpretations of certain data. For example, the United Nations defines extreme poverty as an income of under $1.97 per day. The number of poor people living on under $1.97 per day has decreased markedly in the last century. But one country, China—the world’s largest by population—has experienced one of the greatest escapes from poverty in the world in the last century, and therefore, has an outsized influence on all totals. Given China’s huge influence on poverty measures, one could claim that reduced global poverty in recent decades results from an economic system that insists it is not capitalist but rather socialist.

Economic systems are eventually evaluated according to how well or not they serve the society in which they exist. How each system organizes the production and distribution of goods and services determines how well it meets its population’s basic needs for health, safety, sufficient food, clothing, shelter, transport, education, and leisure to lead a decent, productive work-life balance. How well is modern capitalism performing in that sense?

Modern capitalism has now accumulated around 100 individuals in the world who together own more wealth than the bottom half of this planet’s population (over 3.5 billion people). Those hundred richest people’s financial decisions have as much influence over how the world’s resources are used as the financial decisions of 3.5 billion, the poorest half of this planet’s population. That is why the poor die early in a world of modern medicine, suffer from diseases that we know how to cure, starve when we produce more than enough food, lack education when we have plenty of teachers, and experience so much more tragedy. Is this what reducing poverty looks like?

Crediting capitalism for poverty reduction is another myth. Poverty was reduced by the poor’s struggle against a poverty reproduced systemically by capitalism and capitalists. Moreover, the poor’s battles were often aided by militant working-class organizations, including pointedly anti-capitalist organizations.

This adapted excerpt from Richard D. Wolff’s book Understanding Capitalism (Democracy at Work, 2024) was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Richard Wolff is the author of Capitalism Hits the Fan and Capitalism’s Crisis Deepens. He is founder of Democracy at Work.