Many
outlets of the free press occasionally show their true colors: That
they are boosters of their local communities, owned by oligarchs and
giant corporations, or they support government policies and positions
about the nation's “enemies.”
There
are other signs, of course, that tell us where the free press stands,
but one local newspaper editorialized on July 3 that unionized
workers who are on strike should not be provided with unemployment
benefits after one week, because they did not lose their jobs and
paychecks due to “market conditions,” but because they
took the risky step of striking for better pay and benefits, as well
as safer and healthier working conditions.
It
was with a bit of irony that the editorial in The Daily Gazette in
Schenectady, N.Y., should appear on the day before Independence Day,
a day that could be celebrated as one on which workers once could
observe their independence from the full power of business interests.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gave workers the right to
organize unions and collectively bargain contracts under which they
would raise the standard of living for all workers.
Yes,
unions have set the standards for wages, benefits, pensions, and
things like safety and health on the job, paid sick leave, and
standard breaks from grinding and grueling assembly lines and other
hard labor and mind-numbing repetitive work. That is, they have
accomplished these things historically, at least during most of the
20th Century, after passage of the NLRA, which gave
workers the right (and encouraged them, as well) to organize
themselves into unions. The law, also known as the Wagner Act,
lessened the inequality gap that had always existed between labor and
capital.
But,
for some time, the rich and Corporate America have cranked up the
onslaught against workers and their unions, and they have used
Congress, the state legislatures, and the courts to accomplish their
goals of victory against wage earners, no matter what or who they
are. That effort has been especially felt since the 1980s, but the
war on workers started before that.
Warren
Buffett about 10 years ago famously said, “There’s
class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class,
that’s making war, and we’re winning.” That was a
decade ago and, even at that time, the intensified war on workers had
been in play for about 30 years. There are a couple of historical
numbers that should be put together by anyone who works for a
paycheck: American wages have been stagnant for about 40 years and
back at the beginning of that period was when the war on workers
(specifically on their unions) was gaining the strength that only the
power of unlimited money can unleash. That is not a coincidence
because, as was said above, the unions since World War II had set the
standards for the American workplace.
According
to the Pew Research Center, in August 2018, “After adjusting
for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just
about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long
slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth
since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked
more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January
1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.”
The
bill in question would reduce the waiting period for striking workers
from seven weeks to one week, the same as workers who have lost their
jobs through lay-off, firing, or closing of the business. The
editorial writer demanded that the governor veto the bill because
“...taxpayers will be subsidizing, and potentially encouraging,
people who risk giving up their jobs voluntarily through labor
walkouts.”
Even
with its back to the wall, the union movement is still setting the
standard for all workers and conditions would be much worse if unions
were not attempting to organize new workers and improving pay and
benefits for all workers. Employers have historically kept their
wages and benefits as near as possible to union standards, just so
their workers would not consider unionizing. Being a non-union
paper, The Daily Gazette knows that and its editorial writer should
know that, too, so why should union workers on strike be treated any
differently from non-union workers?
The
war on workers has resulted in the greatest disparity in wealth and
income for at least one hundred years, since the Gilded Age of the
robber barons. That fact alone should have had some bearing on the
thrust of the paper's editorial, but it did not.
Again,
the Pew Research Center, in 2018: “A similar measure –
the 'usual weekly earnings' of employed, full-time wage and salary
workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time
period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly
earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data
series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might
sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median
has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same
purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.”
Despite
the “experts” telling the American people that the
economy is doing fine and the president, as usual, proclaiming that
it is the best economy in the history of the country, the economy is
not doing so well when the reality of it is taken into consideration,
especially in light of the borrowing of trillions of dollars to
balance budgets. Eventually, someone has to pay and it usually is
wage-working taxpayers, no matter how much or little is in their
paychecks. They pay, while the rich and corporations get away
scot-free or nearly so.
Although
the Gazette likes to advertise itself af the only independent paper
in the region, it usually follows the lead of the nation's biggest
papers and uses much from their news services. The editorialist, in
the final word, raised the straw man of the all-powerful union
movement (which it has not been for 50 years), by saying, “When
this bill goes to Gov. Cuomo's desk for his signature, he needs to
resist the financial influence of big labor and veto this bill.”
|