On Friday, a group of Trade Associations ran a full-page ad in the New York Times demonstrating their loathing for the employees of their members:
Expensive new mandates on businesses will result in lost jobs, lower wages, less flexibility and higher health care costs.
Let me translate that from scary talk to plain English. Business will dump every last cent of the costs of health care on employees. No business will give up a single penny of its profits to keep its workers healthy. Anyone who wants health care has to pay for it at whatever price the insurance companies want to charge, and business will cooperate in shifting costs to workers. And there is nothing you can do about it. The profits we suck out of your labor belongs to us, and you don’t get any.
There used to be an unspoken deal between labor and capital that profits from productivity increases would be split, wages would rise as productivity increased. That deal was broken in 1980, and since then, capital has taken all the money, at least the part that didn’t go to pay bonuses on Wall Street. Wages have been stagnant.
This ad trumpets the intention of capital to keep its privileged status: all the money goes to capital. Nothing goes to workers. Productivity was up 9.5% in the third quarter, but:
… the economy resumed growing even as employers pushed forward with layoffs and cuts in working hours across a wide range of industries.
Screw the workers. The signers are the people who truly believe what John Galt says in his tedious speech from Fountainhead Atlas Shrugged:
With the sign of the dollar as our symbol-the sign of free trade and free minds-we will move to reclaim this country once more from the impotent savages who never discovered its nature, its meaning, its splendor. Those who choose to join us, will join us; those who don’t, will not have the power to stop us; hordes of savages have never been an obstacle to men who carried the banner of the mind.
That’s what the capitalist heroes, executive directors of trade associations, who signed this ad think: workers are hordes of impotent irrational savages, while they in all their K Street glory, are the creative people, the productive people. I wonder what these parasites think they are producing. Here’s what Galt would think of them:
A leech would want to seek escape from the necessity to name its own nature-escape from the necessity to know that the substance on which it builds its private universe is blood.
Can you imagine this crowd of lobbyists moving to their shining city in Galt’s Gulch, Colorado, cleaning the toilets and growing wheat? As Galt explains, “… all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others….” Please, please, go Galt on us.
Here’s a list of the signers. You could send them an e-mail politely asking them what they have done that produced something of value to society.
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
Independent Electrical Contractors
The Associated General Contractors of America
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
International Franchise Association
National Federation of Independent Business
International Foodservice Distributors Association
National Association of Manufacturers
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Yeah, “organized” labor is right on that.
Business whines about the employer mandate, but is silent on the individual mandate.
There is a broad populist coalition opposed to the individual mandate which could do well to break down some of the alienation between left and right. If that kind of coalition can be leveraged to challenge Obama’s give aways to big insurers, then that would do more to change the political complexion of the US than anything Obama will do on his own.
“No business will give up a single penny of its profits to keep its workers healthy…”
Bull’s Eye.
Sorta shoots the head in that whole “it’s gonna kill jobs” meme..
“Scary talk”, indeed.
Thank you for the translation of what similar dire prognostications usually mean.
This is the oncological model of capitalism: Capitalism as cancer.
This is what happens when you are missing not only morals, but an ability to take the long view of a situation — or to care about it.
This is “I got mine” enshrined.
By definition the mandates are on businesses, it shouldn’t affect workers at all.
Gee whiz. The same folks who suck at the teat of Federal programs. Most notably, the infrastructure contracting Association of General Contractors and Independent Electrical Contractors.
And the folks who consistent oppose increases in the minimum wage.
It’s the federal money for me and no money for thee crowd.
Maybe I missed it, but where did you get the graphic from and where are the figures listed that the graphic is based on? I’d like to look at the details. Thanks!
wrong thread for this, sorry. comments like this one from a TPM reader re Stupak are infuriating:
The framework of the discussion is fundamentally flawed. Health is not a deliverable commodity and the more government and business interfere with the patient physician relationship the more that system will become inefficient, untrustworthy and bureaucratically cruel.
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/
The profitz are belong 2 uz, silly tasty mousiez.
The Great Divergence.
I smell a communist plot. Last week Brad DeLong practically resurrected Marx’s “Reserve Army of the Unemployed”. Well, actually, he only got as far as Kalecki, but he was headed in that direction. Now this?
Look, if workers really wanted golden health care plans, millions in other people’s money, and first shot at H1N1 virus, they would have gone to work for Goldman, like other humble, hard-working servants of God. Of course, they would have to be intellectually, morally, and characterologically superior human beings to qualify.
Galt of the earth, those Goldman execs. Isn’t their very wealth proof that God loves them more than he loves us? Workers who want food, shelter and health care for their children are just envious of their betters. And you’re fanning flames of dreaded populism and class conflict. You should be telling them how much better off they are than the people of Darfur.
Shame on you.
O/T, but anybody see Krugman today?
If ObamaRahm doesn’t get to work on some jobs (like NOW), I’m afraid it’s gonna get ugly out there…
All Republicans and as much as half of Democrats are anti-labor.
That chart isn’t an economic chart, it’s a poltiical chart. For the political class, since 1994 labor has been The Enemy.
Sorry, John Galt was the tedious speechmaker in Atlas Shrugged. The tedious speechmaker in The Fountainhead was Howard Roark. You need to keep your nutballs straight.
[modnote: thank you.]
Maybe that needs to happen. Nothing seems to move this President. He said we can’t look back – well, I would be surprised to learn that we are looking forward. I can’t see any evidence of planning for the future. A lot of street action might get something going.
Apart from sheer greed, which is probably the most important factor, there is the fallacy of composition. Each businessman looks at his costs as if he were the only person subject to the mandates,etc.,when in fact all his competitors face the same new constraints. In principle, the effect on his or her competitiveness is minimal (at most second or third-order effects). This kind of myopia is common, and goes a long way to explaining the ‘conventional wisdom’ on these and similar matters like raising the minimum wage. It supplies an ever-flowing widow’s cruse of economic ignorance.
All the union haters dont understand whats happening here. i usually hear the argument made against unions like this: ” i dont think union workers deserve to make X dollars for doing Y labor..i went to COLLEGE and i dont make that much money”…thats when i tell them they dont understand the real issue and they shouldnt have majored in medieval romanian folklore (unless they planned to go all the way and get the doctorate). Capital couldnt see a profit if labor didnt produce the goods. capital and labor is a partnership and labor should get a share of the profit. the current model treats labor as merely an expense, like machinery, or furniture, or toilet paper, so get the cheapest, even if it comes from mexico or china.
Wow, as good a synopsis as I’ve ever read.
Then ‘capital’ became globalized (i.e., focused on removing any and all regulatory controls from any kind of government entity whatsoever).
My household is an SEIU household.
What I understand is that labor is broken, has been broken for decades, and people still defend the broken system as if it were not broken.
Criticism does not mean hatred. Labor would speak for all working Americans, it monopolizes the mike but it does not do much to broaden its coalition.
Thus, all American workers have fallen behind because our only advocates have been compromised.
When 1/2 of all union members are in the public sector, and a good chunk of the other 1/2 are construction workers who view our communities as blank slates for their job sites, the problem is not with “union haters,” rather with organized labor’s death spiral.
Blame the capitalists for that death spiral does nothing but shift responsibility from labor for its inability to negotiate its way out of it. If they can’t, then stand aside and give others a chance.
That is a great chart. Ian Welch found it and posted it here a number of months ago. I don’t know the source.
I was shocked to see the AGC come out against health care reform, although I guess I shouldn’t be – they’re typically very conservative and Republican, pro-bidness. But their position seems at odds with my experience: most GCs I know provide insurance for their workers – you have to these days to be competitive….I also know my employer pays about $800/month towards my health care family plan (I pony up $400). Shouldn’t any “tax increases” be offset by a reduction in that contribution? I would certainly think so, especially if we can really bargain with the Mobsters, er Insurers.
I’m going to write a scathing letter to them and see what happens.
A business minded entrepreneur or two could do something about this and probably make things better and create a job for himself/herself.
If large numbers of employees are going to be set adrift in the world of private insurance, what’s to prevent them from joining together in an ad hoc group? Some insurance companies cross state lines; those would be the first choice for a very large group of people who share something in common, say their profession.
Other groups would only cover ALL the lawyers in one state, for example.
Some groups will go to the nearest HMO.
The point is, there’s nothing to prevent these people from forming a group and then negotiating with insurance companies for good rates.
Small businesses could be created across the country, helping people to form a group, helping them to negotiate with insurance companies for better rates and if they are employee owned, the process would be completely transparent.
We don’t have to take this sitting down. The process could be and likely would be a lot more transparent than the way seniors must find their medigap policies (a nightmare I assure you).
that half of union members are in the public sector and many more are contruction workers, who see the world as a blank canvas to build on, is because those are the only jobs left to organize, that havent been shipped overseas. ( lest someone get the wrong idea most construction jobds arent union. Only those large scale commercial jobs are. Residential construction jobs, home building, go overwhelmingly to immigrants. many, if not most of them, undocumented illegal immigrants) I dont believe that is the fault of labor unionism, unless the defeat of a good idea by a bad one is the fault of the good idea. Or if the right cause loses to the wrong one, some fault lies with the supposed defenders of the right, but wrong usually has a lot more money and power behind it.
But in any case i wasnt talking about legitimate “criticism” of unions. im talking about the never ending war against the very concept of unions, which has been waged non stop by american capitalists since the 19th century. Its a fight beased only on narrow self interest, waged by capitalists and their lackeys, and because of decades of misinformation, many americans dont understand whats truly at stake. as a union member im sure you do.
How ironic that the largest “UNION” in the country is the one that is ANTI-WORKER.
When have you heard that “little fact” when the media talks about Unions and their Labor Contracts?
Never!!
which union is that? i forget which is the largest.
Workers do get a share of the profits. It’s called wages and fringe benefits.
Unionizing the public sector was a big mistake.
When was the last time a construction workers union was organized? How many workers were organized? Labor is coasting to a standstill due to work done generations ago.
It just might be that unions are not the best tool to represent workers going forward against the kind of onslaught we’ve seen for the past 30 years. Now we see labor taking on the same kind of narrow interest. Save our headcount and we’ll do step on whatever progressives you want.
SEIU is not pure evil. They’ve been valuable partners on ballot measure campaigns. But the moment SEIU’s buy out price point has been reached, they’ll fuck you as a former ally over faster than you can say UHW.
Solidarity for most unions is a one-way street. My partner is the union member. Whatever is at stake, the SEIU is not in a position to fight for it. And whenever confronted with this disconnect, SEIU accuses whomever of being anti union, just like you did.
The fact is that working Americans are being screwed more now than we had over the past 30 years, and labor is ineffective at stopping that. Why again should their franchise be honored?
“Dear Trade Associations, Why do You Despise the Workers?”
Dear Workers (and Unions), Why do You Despise Businesses?
Amen!
Sounds like you’d prefer to go back to the days when all government jobs at all levels were patronage jobs, regardless of the actual skills necessary to do the job?
I bet you were a real big support of the Coalition Authority in Iraq hiring only politically connected folks rather than folks who actually had the necessary skills to do the job.
Yeah, those damn public sector employees and unions just can’t be trusted to do the PC thing and just bend over.
People need to remember one thing… The Union itself (not the members) are a business; and it’s a BIG business. The Union only cares about the worker to the extent that it helps the Union. They are there to make money. If you think anything different you are delusional.
The progressive reforms that led to the civil service systems and the rise of organized labor in the public sector are two different phenomenon. I don’t think that there are is a causal relationship.
Are you suggesting that patronage is not a problem in American government at all levels today?
Please take a careful look at the chart. Then explain why I am wrong to suggest that the compact regarding productivity gains was not broken beginning with the Reagan administration.
Great image, the widow’s cruse.
I think economic ignorance will satisfy many such.
Patronage is not a problem when there are strong public sector unions that take their responsibilities seriously.
But you are correct that patronage is a problem these days. I’m thinking especially about all the Cheney moles embedded throughout the Federal roster and all the Regent grads brought into DoJ because they weren’t graduates of those dastardly liberal hot beds such as Harvard and Yale.
because reagan became president jan. 20, 1981.
and the line diverges before that date — as you even wrote, “That deal was broken in 1980″.
i’d like to add something to the analysis – capitalists should be broken into industrial capitalists and finance capitalists. it’s an important distinction to aid in understanding what happened.
Not all public jobs are organized, and the patronage tends to occur there.
Amongst organized public workers, there is so much job security that deadwood stays on yet management has the ability to ease out “troublemakers” that don’t play with the program. This would just be curious if the working stiffs paying taxes to fund the public sector can only dream of such a working arrangement.
I’m more concerned about Democrats who sidle up to the public works feeding trough and siphon off public dollars to their preferred contractors.
Are you suggesting that working people should look to Harvard and Yale for leadership?
No, I’m suggesting that your cure would be worse than the supposed affliction.
Are there incompetents working in government service? Of course. Just as there are incompetents working in for profit businesses. Or have you never run across the incompetents that are connected to management and make other folks life’s miserable because they know somebody? If you haven’t, then you’ve lived a fortunate life.
And sorry but there is probably more abuse of the system by the Republicans than the Dems can ever hope to compete with. Or do you forget that the bailout of the banksters started under the Republicans? And that it was the Republicans giving no-bid contracts to their cronies at Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.
I’d look to people from most any good college, not just Harvard and Yale. Who do you think should be providing leadership? Beck or Limbaugh? Or just anyone who isn’t currently a union leader today?
Edit: and for the record, I am quite aware that there are non public service union jobs in most every state. At least at the Federal level, those are mostly appointee positions and sometimes appointees are actually competent.
The affliction is that unions are not delivering their end of the bargain for working Americans and working Americans do not see unions as capable of delivering their end of the bargain.
Defend that dissonance all you want, how you do so and how it doesn’t work anymore is instrumental in understanding why labor is where it is, and what the best path forward is for American workers.
These giveaways all got past the Democrats in the Senate who could have stopped it if they chose to and passed with Democrat votes, the same Democrat congress that has problems “adding to the deficit” when it comes to health care. I’d note that labor bargained away single payer early on in this contest, echoing their negotiating posture which has delivered American workers from where we were in 1980 to this wonderful spot. Why might that be?
Patronage corruption is the lifeblood of both parties, labor sucks up to patronage on the Democrat side, and the differences are so blurry you might expect one day for the Democrats to toss reproductive health coverage under the bus in order to get one GOP vote.
Did you learn how to offer up the false choice at Princeton or Stanford? Summers and Geithner or Beck and Limbaugh? It is this kind of sub-Alinsky thinking that goes a long way to illustrate why unions are held in such low regard amongst American workers.
Last time I checked, it was the “smartest” kids in the room who got us into this mess. Why would you expect for the “smartest” kids in the room to get us out of it?
Self government, democracy is not rocket science, whether in the parties, in the unions or in the government. Those with existing privileges related to control over those institutions are the ones who keep on telling us that we need to defer to the properly educated because these problems are just too complex to understand. Wonder why that might be?
Yeah, it couldn’t possibly be 30 years (or longer) of demonization of the unions having any effect on things could it?
I’m not a fan of “the smartest kids in the room” either. I never claimed that Geithner or Summer were the persons to get us out of the fix.
And how were the Dems supposed to stop no-bid contracts issued by the CPA and the BushCo crowds?
And for the record, I would still take someone with a combination of actual real life experience (which would preclude the Beck and Limbaughs as well as most of the MOTU) who have educations over the folks who create the problems.
I just think you are condemning and painting with way too broad a brush. We obviously disagree with this and you are not going to convince me nor I you so we’ll just let it go.
Edit: And I am someone who watched jobs come into my hometown in the 60s because the firms bringing the jobs were doing so to break the unions in a lot of northern states. Which is why I’ve been ambivalent about all the crying about lost jobs in textiles and such, since most of those jobs in the south came from unionized places in the north before they decamped further to the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, and China (amongst other places).
i gues i didnt punctuate correctly. what i said was, most construction jobs arent union. i know bad sentence.
actually, your whole attack on my comment seems like it came from outer space. your going after all kinds of shit that isnt in there. you do that a lot.
what are “fringe benefits”? how do you quantify them? as for wages, they are going down while profits rise and productivity rise. WTF is that? not a share of the profits.
and praise the lord too
“false choice” LOL. this a blog where people come to get information, to exchange thoughts and blow off steam. your line by line dissections of comments would be way obnoxious, even if you didnt dispute shit that no one even said. i know critical thinking 100 is an exhilerating class but save it for the essay portion.
In the old days businesses used to realize that their workers were what made their businesses work. We have let the Wall Street crowd teach business that money is everything, and business should use workers like a tool or machine.
Putting the cat back in the bag may never happen.