This is the third and final analysis of Mitt Romney’s views on the Labor Issue. The last entry on the Labor tab is Mitt Romney’s Plan. Yes, you heard right, he has a plan! He opens his “plan” with four bullets:
• Appoint experienced and even-handed arbiters to the NLRB
• Guarantee businesses the right to allocate capital as they choose
• Protect right of workers to choose whether to unionize
I think that knowing as we do that Mitt Romney’s only concern is protecting and defending corporations, that he will appoint corporate lawyers as arbiters to the NLRB. By doing this, he will ensure that corporations have a stronghold on the negotiations. Next bullet he is an avid advocate and it’s one of the few things that he really does what he preaches: Allowing companies to move their money to wherever they want. Mitt Romney has been doing that for years, he has most of his money in a Swiss account and in a Cayman Island account. Sure he wants to make that practice legal! Not only he wants to outsource jobs but also he wants companies to bank offshore. Great patriotism!
It is clear that he needed to say something about workers, after all what is “labor” if not workers? So he throws what he thinks is a bone to that stinky, smelling working class: the right to choose whether to unionize or not, that is, that is what he will do for the American worker. In his quest to unbalance the political arena, he will make it impossible for Unions to get funding to support political campaigns that will be detrimental for the workforce. Only Citizens United have the right to fund political campaigns… Let’s not forget that corporations are “people” now, Unions are not.
He continues to praise the American worker but not only does he contradicts himself but once again he confuses Corporations with workers. He mentions that we are contenders “for the world’s top spot in labor productivity.” If that is true, why does he wants to make it easier for companies to bring foreigners to fill executive positions that can be performed by an American, or outsource jobs that a blue-collar worker can do? I wonder why “journalists” don’t ask him that question.
Mitt Romney believes that the best trait of the American workforce is its “flexibility.” Of course, Unions are to be blamed for pressing for measures that according to Mitt puts the Corporations in jeopardy to compete. Really? The only reason why he believes this is because he doesn’t want corporations to be forced to protect the well being of their workers or for workers to get paid overtime. He doesn’t want Unions to protect employees that otherwise would be fired simply because they are approaching the retirement age. He would prefer that companies save money by not being regulated, to provide a safe environment by expending in safety gear or equipment. He wants companies to be allowed to pay less to women performing the same job of a man. Perhaps even limiting vacations to one week regardless of the years in the company or not paying for vacation, period. We must not forget that for corporations and Mitt Romney you are just a number, a tool for the company to profit, if you are not working you are not producing for the company and why would a company pay for you not to work?
In order to analyze the impact that Unions and Right-to-Work [RTW] has had I obtained the unemployment rate for all the States from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to compare RTW States vs. Union States. I separated the States into regions: Southern, Northern, Central, Western and Pacific. The States that have embraced the “Right-to-Work” the year they enacted the law is shown in brackets and "Union" States are shown without numbers inside brackets.
• Appoint experienced and even-handed arbiters to the NLRB
• Guarantee businesses the right to allocate capital as they choose
• Protect right of workers to choose whether to unionize
• End funding of union political campaigns through paycheck deductions
I think that knowing as we do that Mitt Romney’s only concern is protecting and defending corporations, that he will appoint corporate lawyers as arbiters to the NLRB. By doing this, he will ensure that corporations have a stronghold on the negotiations. Next bullet he is an avid advocate and it’s one of the few things that he really does what he preaches: Allowing companies to move their money to wherever they want. Mitt Romney has been doing that for years, he has most of his money in a Swiss account and in a Cayman Island account. Sure he wants to make that practice legal! Not only he wants to outsource jobs but also he wants companies to bank offshore. Great patriotism!
It is clear that he needed to say something about workers, after all what is “labor” if not workers? So he throws what he thinks is a bone to that stinky, smelling working class: the right to choose whether to unionize or not, that is, that is what he will do for the American worker. In his quest to unbalance the political arena, he will make it impossible for Unions to get funding to support political campaigns that will be detrimental for the workforce. Only Citizens United have the right to fund political campaigns… Let’s not forget that corporations are “people” now, Unions are not.
He continues to praise the American worker but not only does he contradicts himself but once again he confuses Corporations with workers. He mentions that we are contenders “for the world’s top spot in labor productivity.” If that is true, why does he wants to make it easier for companies to bring foreigners to fill executive positions that can be performed by an American, or outsource jobs that a blue-collar worker can do? I wonder why “journalists” don’t ask him that question.
Mitt Romney believes that the best trait of the American workforce is its “flexibility.” Of course, Unions are to be blamed for pressing for measures that according to Mitt puts the Corporations in jeopardy to compete. Really? The only reason why he believes this is because he doesn’t want corporations to be forced to protect the well being of their workers or for workers to get paid overtime. He doesn’t want Unions to protect employees that otherwise would be fired simply because they are approaching the retirement age. He would prefer that companies save money by not being regulated, to provide a safe environment by expending in safety gear or equipment. He wants companies to be allowed to pay less to women performing the same job of a man. Perhaps even limiting vacations to one week regardless of the years in the company or not paying for vacation, period. We must not forget that for corporations and Mitt Romney you are just a number, a tool for the company to profit, if you are not working you are not producing for the company and why would a company pay for you not to work?
In order to analyze the impact that Unions and Right-to-Work [RTW] has had I obtained the unemployment rate for all the States from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to compare RTW States vs. Union States. I separated the States into regions: Southern, Northern, Central, Western and Pacific. The States that have embraced the “Right-to-Work” the year they enacted the law is shown in brackets and "Union" States are shown without numbers inside brackets.
 |
| Click here to enlarge |
 | ||
| Click here to enlarge |
 | ||
| Click here to enlarge |
 |
| Click here to enlarge |
 | ||
| Click here to enlarge |
Then, I created a National chart; in brackets you can see how many States in each Region have adopted the RTW law. For example, the Western Region is composed of 11 States, eight of those States have enacted the RTW law and three are Union States. The difference is not impressive.
 |
| Click here to enlarge |
There are many factors that contribute to the reason that companies close their doors, but Unions are not the main factor. There are other factors that are far more devastating than Unions. The most threatening is unfair Trade and unregulated trade practices. We all know that what has been the major cause for manufacturing companies to either close their door or for massive lay-offs has been the outsourcing of jobs to far away places such as China, Taiwan, India, Mexico and Brazil among others. The manufacturing of items in these countries with costs at a fraction of what it would cost to produce them in the United States has not only killed our National Industries, but our economy as well. The excuse is that mass-producing overseas is what allows the prices to remain accessible. That is not necessarily true; we seemed to be just fine when we produced what we consumed. The main reason these companies betrayed and continue to betray the United States and rob the American citizens of a productive and prosperous life is not so that we can buy their crap at a reasonable price, rather it is to make huge profits on an equal or even less investment at little or no risk.
It is obvious how much corporations love this country. When faced with the possibility of having to pay taxes, instead of doing the responsible thing and make their fair contribution to help the country and the economy move forward they choose to dismantle their corporations and move overseas. So far, they have been off-shoring their profits but maintaining at least the executive jobs in our shores. After decades of unimaginable margins of profit, after a decade of paying little or no taxes and even receiving huge tax incentives, they show their patriotism by going somewhere else. The government should impose a fine of $5B or more to every company that leaves our shores. I am sure that if the government were to do that, companies would think twice before packing and leaving the country that “made” them. Unfortunately, that will not happen… Republicans in Congress will not allow it and they will continue to kiss the feet (and the asses) of those that are betraying America but filling their wallets.
No comments:
Post a Comment