good piece by Ralph Nader on labor laws, overtime

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

Published on Monday, January 9, 2006 by CommonDreams
Time is Now to Take Back Your Time
by Ralph Nader

A small conference was held on January 6th in Washington, DC about a big concern for tens of millions of American workers - the loss of free time due to the omnivorous demands of their workplace obligations. The gathering, which met to press for public policies which will give workers a better work/life balance, was organized by John de Graaf and Gretchen Burger. They direct a group called Take Back Your Time ([email protected]).

De Graaf has just edited an action book called "Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and Time Poverty in America." Thirty national leaders in this little publicized movement contributed chapters describing the many harmful results to families, health, safety, civic and community life, environment and just plain yearnings for living a higher quality of life.

"Where did the time go?" "I just don't have the time." "When will I ever be able to relax?" How many times have you heard these exclamations or their variations? In this superage of labor-saving technology, pushbutton communications, and all those things that are supposed to save you time, just the opposite is happening to most people - they're desperate for working to live rather than living to work through ever longer congested commutes.

This "Time to Care" conference got down to business with workshops on a series of ways our society can start to tackle what de Graaf calls "time poverty." They've come up with a list of measures that they want to become labor laws, which have been in the statute books for a long time in other western countries.
more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0109-32.htm

[applegrove]

1. I just want him to admit he will not run in the next election. I want him

to say that. I want him to have learnt that there is a difference between monsters and moderates.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

2. he'll be in his late 70s, i doubt he's running

.

[applegrove]

5. He still has a responsibility to learn from his mistakes!

[Telly Savalas]

50. So do the Democrats.

And not being more aggressive in raising issues like the one mentioned in the article in the original post is a big fat mistake.

We've got a lot of good people in the House and Senate. Why don't they use their soapbox to crusade for labor issues?

[yellowcanine]

3. I refuse to read any pronouncements from "Saint" Ralph. Without him Al

Gore would be 1 year into his second term. Still think there isn't any difference between Gore and Buch, Ralphy?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

4. snore

there was barely a difference in pre-9/11 bush and gore
both were corporate globalistic, pro-death penalty jokes

[applegrove]

6. Snoring is your apathy. Sleep your way into thinking there is no choice.

And live in Rove's 30 year empire. Enjoy!

[G_j]

11. too much credit

that just lets the criminal, racist, election stealing Rs off the hook.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Horsehockey. Did we mind when Perot split the Repub. vote?

There was nothing wrong with Ralph running. To say he gave us Bush is ridiculous.

Now as for the 2004 election, in which he had a perfect right to run, he lost me forever when he took smear vet money. Integrity my ass. He can take his "dime's worth a difference" and shove it up his wrinkled ass.

I have other reasons to not want to hear from the man. Surely even he can see that Bush was much worse than Kerry for the country.

[DURHAM D]

7. Has Ralph returned his bribe/monies to Abramhoff

and Norquist yet?

[mzmolly]

37. I don't believe he has. Nor do I believe he ever paid the homeless people

he hired in PA to gather signatures.

[Telly Savalas]

46. Probably not, but do you have any objections to his proposals

regarding the expansion of parental leave, sick leave, or vacation time in the United States?

I think they're the sort of solid common sense policy ideas that would appeal to Americans and win Democrats seats in the House and Senate.

[mzmolly]

55. These are NOT his proposals "Telly."

I thought I clarified that earlier. ;)

[mzmolly]

8. This from the man who stiffed homeless people in PA and busted unions

in his own organizations. Why am I not surprised by this ...

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is the lead legislator in Congress championing these and other measures by the "Time to Care" movement. Of course a living wage will reduce the pressure to hold one and a half or two jobs to stave off bankruptcy or debt slavery. A living wage allows time for a living family with time for children and community activities.

A few weeks ago, members of Congress once again gave themselves their automatic annual salary increase while sitting on the long frozen federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. Even the CEO of WalMart urges a minimum wage increase. Yet the Democratic Party still resists making this issue a front and center national initiative in Congress.

Last time I checked Ted Kennedy was a !#W^ DEMOCRAT Ralf. Last time I checked REPUBLICANS were in power Ralf.

Further, (unless I'm overlooking something??) it is interesting to note that Ralf fails to mention the word REPUBLICANS (the party that eliminated overtime pay, wants to abolish the minimum wage and import slave labor) George Bush, or anyone with an (R) after their name - in his critique of our so called lack of values. Curious? I'd say not considering the source.

Here is the website where Ralf garnered much of his information from:
http://www.simpleliving.net/timeday/time_to_care_call.asp

!#%&

:rant:

[Selatius]

9. The Democratic Party doesn't want to piss off its corporate donors

They hold lots of money, and many of these donors have influence over the corporate news media. It's either have limited access to the news media, essential for shaping public opinion, or no access at all and be labeled a far-leftist fringe Democrat at best, a totalitarian communist at worst.

[mzmolly]

10. Bull carap!

Show me the evidence that Democrats are in the back pocket of corporations. The DNC has raised more money than EVER by garnering small donations from EVERY DAY AMERICANS! ... and WTF about the Republican Party?! Abramoff is par for the course with the R's.

Democrats have always supported Unions. Nader and the Republican Party have NOT. Democrats have supported workers rights/human rights, Republicans support "corporate rights."

I do agree that the media is pro-Republican, but I don't know that Dems are motivated by a desire to remain in their favor?

:hi:

[Selatius]

13. Show me the list of Dems who support NAFTA and are free-traders

If Democrats are so supportive of worker unions, tell me how come in the last 40 years of Democratic control of Congress before the loss of the Senate and House to Repubs that unions have continually shrunk with respect to the workforce and not the opposite direction?

How the hell should I buy the argument that they are for the working man when nobody has lifted a fucking finger as workers across the "rust belt" have been turned out on the street to see their factories moved to China. How should I buy when the buying power of the minimum wage has been decreasing since 1968. That's right! 1968! Not 1996 when the minimum wage was last raised! And how many of those years since '68 were the House and Senate under Democratic control?

Tell me, if they are so for the working man, how come we still have poverty-stricken neighborhoods in the inner-city. What happened to the War on Poverty? I'll tell you what happened. It died. It died in Vietnam under a Democratic administration, and it died with Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Aside from the few solid Democrats around, tell me have the majority of Democrats been boisterously fighting to revive that War on Poverty? From what I can tell, not too many with any amount of power have, but you can bet your ass many ordinary people have.

Free-trade my ass. All it's doing is driving this country into bankruptcy, and Bush is only speeding up the process begun long before he ever touched the White House.

You'll never win if you fight for the working man with pale colors and timid stances. You need bright colors and a strong stance. Being in support of free-trade is, in my mind, antithetical to the ethos that gave birth to the ideas behind the New Deal and the War on Poverty. Whatever happened to fair trade?

Somebody here posted poll numbers that said a very strong majority of Americans support a universal health care system, yet it was "fringe Democrats" like Dennis Kucinich that campaigned on a single-payer universal health care program in '04. Tell me, how come the majority of Democrats in office won't come out equivocally in favor of universal health care?

Tell me, how come almost half the Democrats in the Senate voted for that fucking abomination known as the bankruptcy reform bill?

Tell me, how come it was us socialists, Greens, and "fringe Democrats" on the ground fighting for the Democratic vote in Ohio when folks like Kerry walked away? We were fighting for your vote! For you!

[mzmolly]

17. A small group of Democrats supported NAFTA in 1993.

Further only 25 Democrats TOTAL supported CAFTA.

The list of Democratic CAFTA supporters is also small:

Congress:

Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District); Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District); Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District); Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District); William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District); Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District); Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District); Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District); Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District); Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District); Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District); Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District); John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District); and Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District).

...

Senate:

Bingaman, N.M.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Feinstein, Calif.; Lincoln, Ark.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Wyden, Ore.



As for poverty and workers rights, familiarize yourself with the Clinton years when we had BALANCE and the lowest poverty rate in decades. I know, I lived it and I saw the difference Clinton made with my own two eyes. The facts are as follows: http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/bill-legacy2.html

Over 21 Million New Jobs. 21.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the economy has added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment Is Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades. Unemployment is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in March 2000 -- nearly the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5 percent for 33 months in a row. African-American unemployment has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000 -- the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in March 2000 -- and in the last year has been at the lowest rate on record. For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March -- nearly the lowest since 1953.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History. In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

In contrast:

If you just want to read a shorter report, try the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ recent news release showing how the gap between the rich and poor in this country is now wider than it was in 1929 - right before the Great Depression – at http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03tax-pr.htm.

For further proof that wealthy Americans are getting richer while the poor multiply, watch for a report by the Census Bureau on Sept. 26 that will show the poverty rate and income gap rising. A preliminary survey by the Republican-led federal bureau reported earlier this month that some 1.4 million more Americans fell into poverty last year. About 12.4 percent of all Americans – almost 35 million people – live under the federal poverty rate, which was up from 11.7 percent in 2001.

Under President Clinton, the U.S. poverty rate dropped from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000, close to the record low of 11.1 set in 1973. In the initial year of the Bush regime, the poverty rate climbed for the first time in eight years. With tax cuts for the wealthy and cruel budget cuts for social safety net programs, some believe the poverty rate for 2002 is really closer to the Bush I regime figure, that the Republicans are playing with figures and that the bureau’s estimates fall far short of reality.

Some 12.2 million children – or 17 percent – lived in poverty last year. Many people in the U.S. love to beat their chests and call their country the best in the world, but the fact is that the child poverty rate in their nation is among the highest of major industrialized countries. I don’t know about you, but that’s not a fact of which this American is proud.

Stop believing the rhetoric put out by political opponents of Democrats who bust unions while promoting so called workers rights.

Do we need to reach out to Unions as a Party, YEAH! Do we need to re-think trade, YEAH! But, Democrats are a FAR cry from Republicans in matters of economic justice.

[PsN2Wind]

26. Enough Democrats supported it for it to pass

and Bill Clinton cheerfully signed NAFTA into law after bad-mouthing organized labor for their tactics in opposing it. Clinton better than Bush? You bet. Could he have been better for the blue collar workers of the US, damn betcha he could have been?

[mzmolly]

35. And, as I pointed out, Nader could have been better for workers to.

Namely those who worked for HIM when he busted their attempt to unionize.

[PsN2Wind]

48. I don't think that this "well look what he did thing"

is really productive. But I would ask which had an adverse effect on the greater number of workers, Nader keeping his workers from unionizing or Clinton bargaining away the livelihoods of tens (or more) thousands of manufacturing employees?

[mzmolly]

53. Well, I think it is productive when he continually blames Democrats

for Republican policy issues.

[Selatius]

28. Funny you buy the numbers.

21.3 million jobs created under Clinton. True, but look at the income distribution of the jobs. Just go to the BLS and find the graphs on increases of income across the board from the poorest to the richest under Clinton. The rich got much richer, and the folks at the bottom just barely squeaked by. You're telling me that kind of model where the rich advance far ahead of everybody else and where the poor barely get improvement is a good model to emulate? Sorry, but as that article you cited says, "that's not a fact of which this American is proud."

And it's a cold comfort to people who watched their jobs outsourced.



http://www.faireconomy.org/research/income_charts.html

You also might want to research wealth disparity in this country. You've pretty much got 10 percent of the country owning 70 percent of everything. The bottom 40% own just 0.2% of all the wealth in the country.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

[mzmolly]

36. I have done the "research" and, as I've said I also lived it.

I am aware of the class divide, but I'm also aware of Clinton's record on Poverty, homeownership, jobs etc.

PS your chart is from 1979 to 2001. Clinton was in not in office for 22 years.

[Selatius]

41. No, but Dems held some amount of power throughout the whole period

The Senate and House were under Democratic domination until 1994. From then, only Clinton held the White House. From 1992 to 1994, the three were under Democratic control. You're telling me they couldn't reverse if not at least check the trends at all throughout the period?

One question that bugs me from that period is why universal health care was not passed during that window of opportunity. Could it be that enough Dems were not on board to support it? If I'm wrong on that score, I invite you to correct me.

[mzmolly]

54. One of the first things Clinton attempted to do was to reform the HC

system in this country. Hillary Clinton headed the effort and it was shot down by a Republican majority. Clinton accomplished much, in spite the efforts by Republicans to attack him from every direction when he served our nation.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

27. Clinton passed NAFTA w/ a democratic congress

bush may have built the house of horrors but the DLC laid its foundation, according to treagan's plans

[mzmolly]

34. With the support of VERY FEW Democrats in congress.

But why bother with facts, when bullshit will do.

[Selatius]

42. Question, why did Clinton do that then??? n/t

[Telly Savalas]

47. I'm not real sure, but Clinton did sign

the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

This law leaves a lot to be desired, but it's a step in the right direction and needs to be built upon so the U.S. can catch up with the rest of the world when it comes to strenghtening its families.

(Please play along. We get "Nader Sucks" and "Clinton Sucks" threads all the time. It's pretty rare these days that an actual liberal issue like work leave and vacation gets discussed.)

[mzmolly]

59. I disagree with his decision on that issue and I can't speak for him.

But, I am certain he'd try to rectify some of the consequences and actually enforce the trade agreements we have in place, unlike the current administration.

[bpilgrim]

14. let the Ralph Hate Fest begin

:popcorn:

peace

[mzmolly]

21. Well B, people tend to forget he ran against Democrats in the past

election. He himself says he's a political opponent of ours, and as such he shall be treated like one.

Afterall, I've been involved in a Bush hate fest for about 6 years now. ;) Nader is right up there on my top ten "evil and/or misguided bastards" list.

[G_j]

32. so ?

Everyone who voted in 2000 exercised their democratic rights, legally of their own free will.
Bush is a criminal who stole the office of the president.
People might take note of the difference between criminality and the exercise of legal rights within the system.

[mzmolly]

38. People also might take note of the term "political opponent" and the

name of this discussion board.

So, Nader assisted the Bush cabal in the theft of election 2000 and took money from the thieves as well. SOOO, I can't stand the man. So?

[G_j]

40. whatever

I don't think I said you had to like the man.

I was just pointing out the difference between legal and criminal actions.

[Telly Savalas]

15. I hope I don't get tombstoned for actually reading the fucking article

But it does actually raise a lot of good points. While it lambasts Democrats in general for not fighting for issues of workplace leave and vacation, it does give Senator Kennedy credit for working on it.

What's more productive to the progressive cause: a Nader hate-a-thon or a discussion of labor issues?

[bpilgrim]

16. this is one of the big problems with the ELITE (read DLC) in our party

they can't stand criticism and then they wonder why folks turn away :crazy:


more...
http://GLobalFreePress.com

peace

[Telly Savalas]

18. I'm not a real big fan of Ralph Nader's tactics.

But that article is 100% on the money. Those aren't radical proposals, but rather common sense policies that would put us in line with other Western democracies.

On edit: Furthermore, it does point to serious problems in the Democratic Party when a website of what's supposed to be for its more progressive elements would prefer to whine about Nader than actually discuss the labor issues at hand.

[mzmolly]

19. Uhm, Nader swiped the information, he did not RAISE jack shinola.

http://www.simpleliving.net/timeday/time_to_care_call.asp

[Telly Savalas]

20. Who gives a fuck where it comes from.

It's a good idea.

If all the so called liberals at this site actually gave a shit about this country perhaps they'd focus on these ideas rather than munching on 5 year old sour grapes.

[mzmolly]

22. It's a good idea, with Democratic support!

And it's not going to get any support with Republicans in office. I don't give a shit where the info comes from either, but I do give a shit that he manages to bitch once again about "Democrats" while giving Republicans a pass!

[Telly Savalas]

24. Like most of us here, he's just assuming that the GOP isn't going

to do shit. Do you not think this is a sound assumption?

I consider myself a Democrat and I want to see the Democrats take a stand on these issues. If you have an article written by another Democrat on this issue, I'd be more than happy to read it.

[mzmolly]

25. I prefer not to read the slanted political ramblings of Democratic

opponents on DU.

Nader is an Independent who took money from Repulicans, so I'd also prefer he clarify rather than assume his readers "assume" that he is suddenly no longer in bed with the likes of the Swift Boat Vets.

I suppose *I* could write an article and copy/paste like Mr. Nader is prone to do? Or we could support Ted Kennedy's pleas in this regard if we are interested in actual change?

Or better yet, perhaps we can locate an article from Bush on this subject? :eyes:

[Telly Savalas]

43. So rather than having a discussion about progressive labor issues

you'd prefer to express your hatred of Nader. That's the sort of mentality that loses voters, not wins them.

This place is fucked. If Nader's name had not been in the thread inciting flames, it probably would have sank like a rock smothered by inane bullshit like sniping about smoking bans or the 500,000th "Bush SuX" thread.

Edit: Didn't notice your post #39 when posting this. Sorry.

[mzmolly]

56. Correction! If NADER hadn't taken the opportunity to bitch about

"Democrats" again in his !@#% article I'd not have given two !@$% cents about it. I tire of his "Democrats suck" because the Republican MAJORITY (who he enabled twice) is in a position to F us over. For lack of a better word ... DUH! WE told him so, we told people who voted for him so, and now he's got the GD gall to bitch about the circumstances were in?! Sorry in advance for the lack of originality, but - Ralf can kiss my ass.

I'm not sure what I said in post #39, I'll check it out...

On edit, as I've said this issue is not one a union buster should be taking up, period.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

29. by your logic, every post on du is plagiarism then

god forbid we have writers incorporating what has come before.

or maybe this judgement only applies with knee-jerk nader-bashers

[mzmolly]

33. Not every piece here is, but Nader's platform and many of HIS

articles are.

As for being a so called knee-jerk Nader basher ... I'm a knee-jerk Bush basher too, and yes, I do tend to "bash" back against those who are knee-jerk Dem bashers - silly me.

Now share with me, why YOU take a liking to Democratic political opponents?

[G_j]

31. you needed to ask?

:sarcasm:

[Telly Savalas]

23. Does anybody know offhand of Democrats working on this issue?

The article cites Senator Kennedy, but I'd be surprised if he was the only one. Surely some other members of the all-star team (Conyers, Boxer, Feingold, etc.) are doing something.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

30. i think i heard dodd speaking on it

once

[Telly Savalas]

44. That's a start.

It's issues like this which directly affect people's everyday lives. The Democratic Party would be doing itself a huge favour if it would speak up on them.

[mzmolly]

39. good piece on George Bush re: labor laws/overtime

and then some ...

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/bushwatch/2006budget.cfm

The bottom line on President Bush's budget is that it punishes America's workers and their families for the president's own misdeeds—his stubborn insistence on preserving and expanding tax breaks that mostly benefit the very wealthy. The budget most hurts America's working families who can least afford cuts in programs we all rely on in order to preserve extravagant tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. And instead of putting the nation back on surer fiscal footing, Bush's budget policies and priorities will worsen the nation's financial situation.

[Telly Savalas]

45. It's a great attack on Bush's failures...

but doesn't offer much of a positive alternative. Accuse me all you want of setting the bar too high, but I think we can do a lot better than not trying to actively destroy the nation like Bush.

The United States is falling behind the rest of the Western world, and it needs leadership. In Canada, I believe the policy is 1 year of paid maternity leave with an additional year of parental leave that may be taken by either parent. (This might very well have been expanded in the last couple of years.) These GOP assholes wanna talk about family values? Well, then why would they oppose such a provision which helps solidify families? But more importantly, why isn't our Democratic Party screaming at the top of their lungs demanding it?

In the following link, there's a list of mandated vacation times in various countries:

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/QuestionOfTheMonth/archive/vacationtime.html

That table speaks for itself.

Not only would beefing up our vacation and leave laws be good policy, it's good politics. This is the sort of agenda the public could rally behind.

[mzmolly]

52. Can you show me where the author mentions Bush?

eom

I agree with the larger point, but I've heard it before, from Democrats. ;)

[NNadir]

49. Ralph Nader VIOLATED labor laws in the 1970's.

He fired everyone at the Multinational Monitor when they threatened to strike over illegal and brutal working conditions.

He is a fraud. He has always been a fraud.

I once corresponded with one of the fired journalists who said that he could not believe there was a single person on the left who admired Ralph Nader.

[Telly Savalas]

51. That's fine.

Do you have any objections to the points raised in the article?

[mzmolly]

58. The points are not his. Bush says "nice" things once in a while

as well, I still don't care to read his BS and have him deemed credible HERE. Anyone can raise an occassional "good point." But if they've demonstrated they don't actually give a rip about the consequences of their actions, and their fellow man, I don't consider them sincere when they bitch about the plight of the working class. This guy busted unions fer Kriste sakes!

This article is akin to Bush writing about the evils of war ...

[NNadir]

60. I didn't read them. I don't read Bush or Cheney either.

Nader is a moral hole. I think he has nothing worthwhile to say.

[mzmolly]

57. I have no idea why the SOB is elevated here to any sort of credibility!?

Amazing.

The guy ran against Democrats on a pack of lies, said he'd rather see a President Bush than a President Gore, plagiarizes information from other websites in order to appear "in touch," and compassionate - and he is defended by DU-ers on a regular basis ?!

Color me perpetually !#$* confused.