Saturday, July 30, 2016

Hillary needs to angry-up

Voters want candidates to fight 1% bullying — both the Bern’s and the D’ump’s voters. They want somebody to be mad, angry for them — even if they don’t know exactly, precisely who they want them to be mad at and why.

Big demeanor problem for Hill (and O) is their happy, happy faces. What are they so happy about? I asked about that once at Angry Bear and Beverly Mann explained that Hill had a rep for being icy and was trying to counteract that. Good enough — for then; not anymore.

We the people (sound familiar?) are anything but happy — or hopeful. Hopeful?!

Don’t offers us palliatives to ease the pain we are feeling Hill: higher minimum wage, tuition relief, extended paid health care — assuming you could deliver them. What we need is an angry candidate to go after our skilled and determined oppressors — win or lose. Nothing else would give us real hope, Hill — or give you Bernie’s and the D’ump’s voters — whether you can deliver them to the guillotine or not.
* * * * * * * * * *

" The NLRB declined yesterday to review the decision to unionize of workers at Trump International Hotel, Las Vegas. Roughly 500 Trump International Hotel workers voted and narrowly approved joining the Culinary Workers Union last December, but Trump International Hotel did not recognize the election, arguing that the election was 'anything but free and fair.' "
* * * * * * * * * *

Making union busting a felony ranks with me with women or non-rich men getting the right to vote — or any other civil right you can think of. Union busting is a federal offense — punished by undoing the harm you did to a particular organizer (gets job back until majority fired for “something else” within a year — having no union protection).

The greater harm — the harm of depriving the the entire workplace of any free market bargaining weight (or political forum power) — goes totally unpunished.

Meanwhile don’t take a chance undermining the free market by taking a movie in the movies. Just read in Dean Baker’s Beat the Press:
” In some cases the TPP is directly protectionist. It would strengthen copyright and patent protections, even requiring that member countries have criminal sanctions for copyright protection. ”
* * * * * * * * * *

As long as nobody else talks about re-unionization (as the beginning and the end of re-constituting the American dream) — nobody thinks it is possible to talk about …
… or something.

Easy as pie to make union busting a felony in our most progressive states f(WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) — and then get out of the way as the first 2000 people in the many telephone directories re-define our future.

1 comment:

Denis Drew said...

Why are unions in the U.S. so weak?
By Robert Gebelhoff, August 1

[final paragraph]
" Still, from the past to the present day, labor in the United States simply never seemed to have the same political power that it did in other countries. But why not? What does this say about our political and economic systems? Why didn’t we see corporatism take root here as it did in Europe? What factors have contributed to relatively weak unions in the United States, and can they be changed? "