Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘Dave Johnson’

New Verizon Strike Day Of Action Thursday

Wednesday, May 18th, 2016

Dave JohnsonThe Verizon strike is still going on, and has passed the one-month mark. This is about working people versus giant corporations that have vast power. The 40,000 striking workers want a few things, but the immensely profitable corporation and its wealthy executives want to crush the union and have been refusing to even negotiate. The workers have been without a contract since August.

This weekend the Secretary of Labor Verizon Thomas Perez met with Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, Chris Shelton, Communications Workers of America (CWA) president and Lonnie Stephenson, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Washington. The company agreed to return to the bargaining table but good luck with that. (Verizon just warned Wall Street shareholders that the strike is delaying “cost-cutting efforts.”)

One of the things the workers are asking for is for the company to stop sending workers to jobs sites that are hundreds of miles away from home for months at a time, and just hire a few more people in different locations instead. The company — with billions and billions and billions and billions in profits — and the executives — with millions and millions and millions in compensation — want to save on “costs” (regular working people are “costs”) and insists the employees be disposable cogs that can be maneuvered around the country (bye-bye families) to fit the profit needs of the corporation. They are trying to make workers pay even more for health insurance and accept lower retirement benefits.

Another thing the unions are asking for is for the company to cool off on the outsourcing of thousands and thousands and thousands of call-center jobs to low-wage countries like the Philippines and Mexico.

Meanwhile Verizon’s customers aren’t getting the promised service. But the company doesn’t care. They can just run more ads.

More Than Just Verizon’s Workers

If this sounds like it’s about more than just these workers and this company and its customers, you are starting to get the picture. Nationally the giant corporations have purchased enough of the Congress to block anything that diminishes their power and helps working people or consumers. Nationally the giant corporations have been able to weaken the unions which keeps wages down and working conditions miserable. So without strong government and strong unions regular people have nowhere to turn. THAT is why the Verizon strike is important.

National Day Of Action Thursday

CWA is holding a Verizon “Day of Action” march & rally set Thursday in Washington. They will picket from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the 13 & F street Verizon Wireless store. Then strikers and their supporters will march to Lafayette Park for a rally beginning at 6 p.m.

You can donate to the solidarity fund here. “Donations to the Verizon Striking Families Solidarity Fund will be used exclusively to assist striking families with special needs who are facing very difficult financial circumstances.”

Visit the Stand Up To Verizon website to find local Day of Action events near you.

This blog originally appeared at Ourfuture.org on May 17, 2016. Reprinted with permission. 

Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

Indiana’s Carrier Factory Cuts Focused The “Trade” Election Issue

Wednesday, May 4th, 2016

dave.johnsonSometimes an event comes along that crystallizes people’s awareness of an issue. It is just the right things at the right time. The layoffs at the Indianapolis Carrier air conditioner factory are an example of this kind of event.

The layoffs have focused many people’s feelings about our disastrous “trade” agreements that enable, even encourage, companies to move jobs and factories out of the country so that executives and Wall Street can pocket the wage and environmental-cost differential for themselves.

What Happened At Carrier?

In February air-conditioner manufacturer Carrier, a wing of United Technologies, announced that beginning next year it will move its Indianapolis production to Mexico and lay off the company’s U.S. workers. (It will also gut the factory’s suppliers and surrounding businesses.) The announcement was caught on video and went viral just as the presidential campaign was focusing on the disastrous effects of our country’s “trade” policies.

United Technologies reported $7.6 billion in profits for 2015. This was up from $6.2 billion in 2014. The company is spending $12 billion to purchase its own stock, which manipulates an increase in the stock price. That gives an idea of just how much cash the company has at its disposal. They use plenty of it to enrich executives, with their CEO getting almost $10 million in 2014 after getting more than $20 million in 2013.

Meanwhile, Mexico pays wages averaging $2.70 an hour for manufacturing jobs. By moving production there, the company, executives and Wall Street shareholders can pocket the wage differential. Carrier’s Indianapolis workers, suppliers, businesses, tax base, housing prices and job market? Too bad for them, but that’s not United Technology’s problem.

Workers Driven To “Outsiders” Sanders, Trump

Indiana’s presidential primary is Tuesday, and the Carrier layoffs have become an issue in the campaign. Zach Carter, reporting at The Huffington Post, in “Watch Corporate America Turn A Roomful Of Workers Into Bernie Sanders And Donald Trump Supporters,” writes about the effect of that video announcing the layoffs:

“Throughout the transition, we must remain committed to manufacturing the same high-quality products,” an executive can be heard insisting in a video of the announcement.

“Yeah, fuck you!” a member of the crowd responds.

“Please quiet down,” the official says. “This was an extremely difficult decision.”

“Was it?!”

In his report, Carter explains how this fits into the larger national discussion of “trade” and the effect our “trade” policies have had on jobs and incomes, and why this is a boost to Bernie Sanders’ and Donald Trump’s “outsider” campaigns:

Both Republicans and Democrats have consistently backed economic policies over the past 35 years that have systematically gutted the American middle class. For decades, Congress has listened to corporate lobbyists who told our representatives that if they could just cut this one tax rate, or just ease this one regulation, there would be a renaissance of prosperity. The renaissance has happened for the rich. Everyone else has been left behind.

The middle and working classes have been hit hard by these economic policies that favor the upper-end “donor class.” This “establishment” abandonment of America’s middle- and working-class voters is a “YUGE” issue in this year’s presidential election, driving the insurgent campaigns of Sanders and Trump. In an example of how the Carrier layoffs are driving this, The Indianapolis Star reported on Trump’s campaign announcement, in April’s “Trump opens Indiana campaign by blasting Carrier, Republican nominating process“:

“You’re looking at a situation where the jobs are being ripped out of our states, out of our country, like candy from a baby,” he said.

He lambasted massive layoffs at air conditioner manufacturer Carrier’s plant in Indianapolis. The company and its affiliates announced in February they would eliminate 2,100 Indiana jobs as they move production to Mexico. The layoffs have been a favorite target of Trump, who said Wednesday he would “tax the hell” out of the company.

“You’re going to bring it across the border, and we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax,” he said. “Now within 24 hours they’re going to call back. ‘Mr. President, we’ve decided to stay. We’re coming back to Indianapolis.’”

While the economic picture moves many voters toward both Sanders and Trump, it appears that Sanders is the once getting much of the support of the Carriers workers themselves. Dave Jamieson, also writing at HuffPo, has an article headlined “Union Representing Laid-Off Carrier Workers Endorses Bernie Sanders“:

The Carrier workers found themselves in the national spotlight after a video emerged in February that showed a company executive informing them that their jobs were going to Mexico. Since then, the Carrier story has worked its way into the stump speeches of presidential candidates on both the left and the right, as they have pilloried the company for its plans to offshore 2,100 jobs.

Workers at the plant are represented by the United Steelworkers Local 1999, based in Indianapolis. …

Hugunin said the union decided to back Sanders because of his consistency in opposing trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which removed trade barriers between the U.S. and Mexico.

With the Indiana primary on Tuesday, Sanders has been showing up and talking about the Carrier layoffs. Last week WFYI Indianapolis reported:

As many as a thousand union members and supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders rallied outside the Indiana Statehouse Friday in support of laid-off Carrier factory workers.

Sanders’ last-minute appearance at the protest came days before Tuesday’s primary election, where the Carrier story has taken center stage.

The diverse crowd on the statehouse lawn wielded signs reading “Keep it made in America” and “Save our jobs, stop corporate greed,” and chanted union slogans like “stand up, fight back.”

Many of them were there just for Sanders, who gave an energetic speech calling Carrier’s plans to close its Indianapolis factory and move 1,400 jobs to Mexico “unbelievable.”

We will see after the polls close Tuesday know how this affects the Indiana primary.

Racing To The Bottom

Moving jobs to Mexico and other low-wage countries impoverishes American workers and devastates entire regions of the country, while enriching executives and Wall Street shareholders. Our country used to “protect” our democracy with its good wages and environmental protections by assessing a tariff on goods coming from countries that exploit workers and the environment. This prevented the cost savings gained from this kind of exploitation from undermining American workers and their quality of life.

Since “free trade” ideology took hold in the 1970s, undoing these protections and allowing companies to move production out of the country, our country has had a trade deficit every single year, and American workers have not seen a wage increase. Wall Street’s share of the economy (and political power) has soared while manufacturing’s (and workers’) share has declined. Inequality has accelerated.

This kind of “trade” trade-off is often justified as good for the workers in the low-wage countries. However, Reuters provides an example of how this just is not the case:

But the same low wages that help make manufacturers competitive are a long-term drag on the economy.

[ …] Low wages are a huge incentive for both Mexican and foreign firms. One in seven Mexican workers earn the average minimum wage of 65.58 pesos ($5.10) a day or less, national statistics office INEGI says. The average hourly wage in Mexico – home to Carlos Slim, one of the world’s richest men – is 31.3 pesos ($2.43).

Manufacturing workers fare better with wages averaging about $2.70 an hour but they make up only 16 percent of the labor force and their pay is way below the $19.50 per hour in the United States, figures from INEGI and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show.

[ …] Mexico City’s center-left mayor Miguel Angel Mancera has called for a national debate on how to improve wages. “Could it be that the Mexican economy doesn’t grow because the level of income for workers is so low?” he said.

Summary: “Could it be that the Mexican economy doesn’t grow because the level of income for workers is so low?” Workers there are paid so little that they not only can’t afford to buy things made in the U.S., they can’t even get by in Mexico, and this is dragging down Mexico’s economy along with ours.

Workers here are left fighting each other for the remaining low-wage jobs. Entire regions of our country are left devastated – Flint and Detroit, Mich., and the rest of the Rust Belt. “Free trade” has delivered nothing but misery and destruction to so many … but made a very few people enormously wealthy. The public is sick and tired of the “establishment” that brought this on us.

Or, as Atrios put it Monday,

This is the simple fact that our political class (who are mostly rich) fails to grapple with. I think they see the world as a combination of the way their peers see it (and they’re mostly rich!), some 30 year old vision of Middle Class America, and The Poors. They don’t get that middle class America are increasingly becoming like the poors. Maybe a bit more money, maybe a bit better lifestyle, but living paycheck to paycheck with student debt and one financial (medical, etc..) event away from nothing.

… I’m sure we can throw a few more credits into the tax code and that will solve everything.

Maybe he’s right. Maybe a few more tax credits for the already-wealthy will fix everything. Maybe another “trade” deal encouraging even more factories to move somewhere else will fix everything. After all, prices will be even lower as more things are made and done by exploited workers in places that don’t protect the environment. What could go wrong?

This blog originally appeared at ourfuture.org on May 3, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

 

How Scalia’s Death Affects That Important Public-Employee Union Case

Wednesday, February 17th, 2016

dave.johnsonWith the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death Saturday, the court’s ideologically conservative 5-4 majority is no more. One big case this affects is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which the conservative ideological majority on the court was prepared to use to bankrupt public-employee unions. Now they can’t do that.

The Friedrichs case involves a lawsuit from anti-union groups that want to stop public-employee unions from collecting dues from non-members, even though they are required by law to provide expensive services. A unanimous 1977 ruling by the Supreme Court, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, had said that unions can collect dues from nonmembers for “collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes” while those nonmembers are free to choose whether to also pay into union funds used for political purposes. The conservative, anti-union ideologues on this court, which included Scalia, went against precedent and “settled law” in agreeing to hear this case at all.

The post” Why You Should Pay Attention To The ‘Friedrichs’ Supreme Court Case explains”:

The Supreme Court has once again decided to reconsider “settled law.” This time it is a case involving the rights of public-employee unions to charge employees a fee for the services the unions are required by law to provide to all employees – even those who are not members of the union. The goal is to bankrupt the unions by denying them the funds necessary to perform the required services.

The argument is that since unions protect working people’s pay and rights, paying fees for union services therefore violates the “free speech” of those who support concentrated wealth and power.

The purpose of keeping unions from collecting dues while requiring them to provide services was clearly to bankrupt the unions. The post “Supreme Court Appears Ready To Bankrupt Public-Employee Unions” looked at the funding behind the case — and behind getting the anti-union ideologues onto the court:

The names Koch, Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Coors, Walton and the others are well known to people who study the massive amount of money behind the so-called “conservative movement” that has helped drive anti-democracy efforts and the resulting inequality in the decades since the 1970s. This small band of wealthy foundations and billionaires are among the same conservative donors who funded the efforts to place the current corporate-conservative majority on the court, and many of the politicians who voted to put them there.

What Now?

Justice Scalia died before the Court decided the Friedrichs case. The court is now evenly divided, with four justices who almost always rule on the side of big corporations and billionaires against unions, environmentalists, consumer groups and all other interests the protect the non-wealthy public in general. The other four justices usually consider the constitutionality, law and merits of the cases before them.

In the Friedrichs case, there is little doubt that the court will now tie 4-4 because of the unanimous Abood precedent. The rules of the legal system say a tie in the Supreme Court means that the ruling of the lower court that advanced the case up to the Supreme Court stays in effect.

In the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, that lower court is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court ruled that the unanimous 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Abood is still settled law and applies, so the California Teachers Association could continue to collect dues from nonmembers.

Put another way, Scalia’s death likely means that public-employee unions will not be forced into bankruptcy by the corporate/billionaire-funded “movement” ideologues on the Court.

This blog originally appeared at OurFuture.org on February 16 2016. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the U.S.

Don’t Make Us Work ‘Till We Die!

Friday, April 22nd, 2011

Dave JohnsonThere was a time on this country when We, the People were in charge, and our government worked for us. Through our government we did things for each other and for our economy, and when we had economic success we paid back toward more such investment. Things are different today and We, the People are no longer in charge. In fact, We, the People are thought of now as “the help.” And lately the Powers That Be have been thinking they aren’t getting quite enough work out of us. So they want to make us Work ‘Till We Die.

The country has a budget deficit caused by tax cuts for the rich, huge increases in military spending, wars, covering problems caused by the Great Recession, and interest on the Reagan/Bush debt. To address these deficits the Powers That Be are coming up with plans to raise the retirement age, eliminate Medicare and cut the rest of the things We, the People do for each other — while, of course, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich.

In response the Strengthen Social Security campaign is launching Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die — a website, actions, video and petition.

Check out the following Video:

Work \’Til We Die

Local Actions April 28!

Click here to find an event near you.

Virtual Rally!

If there is no event near you, you can participate in their Virtual Rally.

This is great. Print out a sign and take a picture of yourself holding the sign. Email it to: virtualrally@socialsecurity-works.org with your City & State in the subject line, and be part of the Virtual Rally.

Sign ideas:
* Don’t Make Me Work ‘Til I Die
* Don’t Make My Kids to Work ‘Til They Die
* Make Your Own

What Others Are Saying

Left In Alabama: Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die,

There will be rallies in 18 states — 52 of them at last count — on April 27 and 28 where current retirees will demonstrate how hard or even impossible it would be for them to continue working at the jobs they retired from.

Digby: Don’t Make Us Work Until We Die.

Evidently, this is the new fate for many more of the elderly. Between raising the retirement age, skimping on the benefits, wage stagnation and economic wipe-outs like the Great Recession, young and old alike will be competing for all those low paying jobs. But since three and four generations will all have to live under the same roof, perhaps they can come up with some sort of job share concept so that they can work in shifts and someone will be at home to take care of the children. As long as it doesn’t inconvenience the employer, of course.

Richard Eskow at Ourfuture.org: Work ‘Til You Die: The Alternate American Reality — And The Reality

The retirement age is already scheduled to increase, and raising it even more is nothing less than cruel. That idea’s part of the political trend toward “austerity economics,” a resurgent anti-government ideology that’sengendered a wave of enthusiastic — no, make that orgiastic prose — from well-fed pundits. Their display of almost snuff-movie-like excitement should have been predictable, but I found it shocking anyway.

AFL-CIO Now Blog: Tell Lawmakers, ‘Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die’,

There is a scary scenario in store if the Republican budget, drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, is ever implemented. Take a look at this new video from Strengthen Social Security, Don’t Cut It, that takes us to a new dimension where “politicians are cutting our Social Security and Medicare and forcing us work until we die.”

The Serlingesque video is part of a new campaign to fight back against the Republican budget and other proposals to raise the retirement age, turn Medicare over to Big Insurance and slash Medicaid for seniors, children and people with disabilities.

Next week on April 27 and 28 in more than 50 cities in 18 states, activists from the Strengthen Social Security, Don’t Cut It coalition—the AFL-CIO and the Alliance for Retired Americans are part of the coalition—will hold events at congressional district offices to tell their lawmakers hands off Social Security. Click here to find an event near you.

The Main Street blog

Everyone who has worked in a physically demanding job knows what increasing the retirement age will mean. It’s one thing to preach the necessity of this from behind a desk in a cushy office. It’s another thing to be a miner, nurse, truck driver, cook, carpenter, janitor, or a waiter at age 67 — if our bodies last that long. For those who are among the still unemployed/underemployed, and over the age of 55, the promise of Social Security in the future is what keeps us going. We can’t let them pull the rug out from under seniors who have worked long and hard, and paid in to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Dean Baker at CEPR: Why Do Real Men Want to Cut Social Security?

It really speaks volumes about the nature of politics in Washington that in order to be accepted as a serious participant in the budget debates, it is now necessary to affirm a willingness to cut Social Security. This is bizarre from many different angles.

RootsWire

BennyHollywood,

Blue Hampshire

Suburban Guerrilla

Ellen’s Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog: Days of Action to Protect Social Security/Medicare,

April 27th and 28th will be days of action to protect Social Security and Medicare. The themes are “Don’t Make Me Work Until I Die” and “Don’t Make My Kids Work Until They Die.” Here’s the video:

… If you’re ok with foregoing retirement and health care when you need it most so some CEO of a multinational can walk away with billions (trillions) and take his jobs to India, China and Pakistan, then go ahead and vote for Republicans and do nothing on April 27th and 28th, but if you want US jobs and a US middle class that provides for a dignified retirement, then join Strengthen Social Security for its events, virtually if you cannot make a meeting.

About the Author: Dave Johnson is Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California. Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers.

This blog originally appeared in Dirty Hippies on April 21, 2011. Reprinted with Permission

Why I am Pro-Corporate

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

I am pro-corporate. I’ll go a step further with that and proclaim that I believe that there are no bad corporations, and that I haven’t seen any corporations do anything wrong.

I see the way you are looking at me. I’d better explain.

The reason I say there are no “bad” corporations is because corporations are not sentient beings that can “do” things or that can be good or bad. They can’t make decisions. Corporations are just a bundle of contracts that allow groups of people to more easily raise capital and amass resources. Corporations are things, like chairs, and things do not make decisions, any more than a chair does. Corporations are tools and tools are neither good nor bad.

When I say I am pro-corporate, this is what I mean: The things that the corporate legal structure enables people to do are good for society. This is why We, the People decided to enact the laws that created corporations. If we want to be able to accomplish things on a large scale, like build a railroad or airports and airplanes or skyscrapers – or solar power plants to replace coal power plants – we want to enable people to more easily raise the necessary capital and amass the resources needed to get the job done. The legal structure of the corporate form of a business accomplishes this.

Corporations, a bundle of contracts, don’t “do” anything, people do. And that is why this discussion is important right now. We are looking here at how to restructure our economy, but before we can do that, we have to correctly identify what went wrong. We have to understand who the good and bad actors were.

So what are some of the things that companies have been doing that we as progressives think should change? Let’s use the highly-publicized example of Wal-Mart and their low wages and benefits and Chinese imports. Wal-Mart always complained about being cast as the bad-actor. They said that if Wal-Mart raised wages and benefits and their competitor Target didn’t, then they would be at a competitive disadvantage and Target would take over the business. And, by extension, any company that tries to “do the right thing” is immediately at a disadvantage to a company that does not.

Looked at this way, if we make Wal-Mart raise wages and Target doesn’t, then not only is Wal-Mart in trouble as a company but now we’re starting all over again trying to get Target to raise wages. And if THEY do so, then along comes K-Mart or Costco or a new company X-Co to pay the low wages, charge lower prices and take away the business. This feels like it is going around in a circle, trying to fix a problem in one place and the pressures of the system immediately make the problem appear somewhere else.

I think blaming companies for the things they “do” also places a lot of stress on people inside of them who might agree with us, and even can alienate them from otherwise supporting progressives. People in the corporate world often feel trapped because the rules of the game require them to engage in what we think of as bad behavior. These are good people who would be very helpful to us in making the correct changes but they feel forced by the system to do the things they do. They are pulled two ways. Executives at Wal-Mart on the one hand can be want to raise wages, and on the other hand have a responsibility to compete with Target.

So what am I getting at here? The companies are not the problem, the rules we set up for them are. Companies operate on a playing field on which the rules of the game are supposed to be decided by US. We, the People are supposed to set up the ground rules and then the companies are supposed to follow those rules. Wal-Mart followed those rules. If we didn’t like the wages and benefits that companies pay, why don’t we change the rules and tell them they all have to pay higher wages and provide better benefits?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Many progressives have been trying to get companies to “behave” in better ways, and haven’t been getting much done — I think due to not correctly identifying the problem. The real problem is that we haven’t set up the rules of the playing field to require these companies – all of them – to provide good wages and benefits, etc. It is our job to regulate what these corporations do. So why didn’t we, through our government, change the rules for all the companies, so they all had a level playing field and clear rules? Identifying why we have not fixed the rules is the path to fixing the larger problem.

What has been happening is that a few people in the bigger companies have been using the resources of those big corporations to influence our system and set the rules of that playing field to give an edge to their companies. They do this so they can personally gain.

This is where we need to focus to fix the corporate system. There should be no way for people in companies to have any say whatsoever in how the playing field on which they operate is set up. How to accomplish this is a subject for future posts.

As I said above, corporations are just a tool, like a hammer. But a hammer can do a lot of damage if a person hits you upside the head with it. That is what we have to stop: a few people using corporate resources and hitting us upside the head.

Oh, and for the record, I am pro-chair, too, though my wife will probably insist I am a pro-couch partisan.

Dave Johnson:Dave is at Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and a Fellow at the Commonwealth Institute.

This article originally appeared at Blog for Our Future and is reprinted here with permission from the author.

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog