We've been seeing and hearing about shuttered factories, businesses, and laid off workers with frightening frequency lately. And so the closing of Republic Doors and Windows on Chicago's North Side might have escaped our attention, except for one thing. Workers there decided to occupy the factory. In doing so, they've become national news, even earning praise from Chicago's favorite son, Barack Obama. Their beef is legitimate, their cause is peaceful. They've met with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who took action on their concerns.
The 300 workers were due vacation and severance pay, as are many (but not all ) workers who are losing their livelihoods on the cusp of the holiday season. Trouble is, the company shut down abruptly last Friday because Bank of America canceled Republic's line of credit due to a downturn in the firm's business. That would be the same Bank of America that received billions in taxpayer dollars as part of the great financial bailout of 2008.
The best the bank could come up with is they're not responsible for the company's obligations to their workers. Yet they are responsible to the American people. What exactly did they think the $25 billion dollars they got in the bailout was for, anyway? In the face of this arrogance, Governor Blagojevich has ordered the state to stop doing business with BoA. Score one small one for the workers.
What the employees of Republic Doors and Windows are experiencing is being felt by businesses, big and small, all over America. This factory occupation could well be a template for other workers who find a bunch of high rolling bankers have their foot on their necks. Imagine a taxpayer revolt against banks that take government money yet refuse to use it to keep otherwise profitable businesses alive.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson understands the stakes here. That's why his Rainbow-PUSH Coalition handed out free turkeys and bags of food to the workers inside Republic Windows and Doors. And the empathy shown by our president-elect can't be underestimated either. It's not often we see people taking direct action to protest their circumstances.
Let's hope it spreads, don't you think?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Liberals Worried about Obama?
The issue has been on the down low, and the concern has been incremental. Does Barack Obama really represent the change he talked about during the campaign? For some liberals/progressives, the answer is at best hazy, and at worst no. The president-elect's cabinet choices, and his switch on reversing tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year are giving some folks pause. For his part, Obama and some of his supporters say it's way too early to judge. Is it?
His backers in the labor movement point out that when he introduced his economic team, he didn't appoint a labor secretary. Some think that omission signals a lesser role for a constituency that backed him with votes and money. Then there's the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon. The grumbling here is that Obama could be waffling on his pledge to start ending the Iraq war on his first day in office.
Of course, he hasn't had a first day in office yet. And no matter what his economic and national security teams look like, it will be Barack Obama setting policy. Still, the man who promised change as a candidate doesn't seem so committed to change as president. Then there's the question of what change was promised, and what was expected. If the change is from the Bush years, a case can be made he's setting about that, even with the retention of Gates. After all, does anyone think a massive economic stimulus package would be on the current president's agenda?
However, if people interpret Obama's promise of change to be something more fundamental, it should come as no surprise that some people find him lacking. Right now, every appointment and utterance from this president-elect is going to be heavily scrutinized. The nation's economy has fallen down a deep hole, and in the end, that's the change people will most want to see. Last month, the number of people losing their jobs jumped to 533,000. Change may best be measured not in cabinet appointments, but in putting people back to work.
What do you think?
His backers in the labor movement point out that when he introduced his economic team, he didn't appoint a labor secretary. Some think that omission signals a lesser role for a constituency that backed him with votes and money. Then there's the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon. The grumbling here is that Obama could be waffling on his pledge to start ending the Iraq war on his first day in office.
Of course, he hasn't had a first day in office yet. And no matter what his economic and national security teams look like, it will be Barack Obama setting policy. Still, the man who promised change as a candidate doesn't seem so committed to change as president. Then there's the question of what change was promised, and what was expected. If the change is from the Bush years, a case can be made he's setting about that, even with the retention of Gates. After all, does anyone think a massive economic stimulus package would be on the current president's agenda?
However, if people interpret Obama's promise of change to be something more fundamental, it should come as no surprise that some people find him lacking. Right now, every appointment and utterance from this president-elect is going to be heavily scrutinized. The nation's economy has fallen down a deep hole, and in the end, that's the change people will most want to see. Last month, the number of people losing their jobs jumped to 533,000. Change may best be measured not in cabinet appointments, but in putting people back to work.
What do you think?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls?
The transit commission empaneled by Gov. David Paterson here in New York has come back with a report that, while promising bus and subway riders a break, is being met with skepticism by that same public. The plan would drastically cut the amount of a fare increase, from 23% to 8%. Plugging the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's yawning budget gap would fall to two major revenue generators. One is a payroll tax on employers in the region. The other is tolls on on East and Harlem River bridges that are now free to cross.
You can imagine the reception the latter got. Lawmakers from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx screamed bloody murder. This they've done every time the notion of tolls on those bridges has come up. That's precisely why they' re still free. Yet we live in different times. Although a New York Times analysis says the payroll tax alone would plug the budget gap, the tolls would serve another useful purpose. It's proposed to use that money to fund an expansion of existing bus service, from the creation of new depots to the creation of dedicated bus corridors that would be separate from other traffic.
This proposal is intriguing, and worth a look of its own. Many cities already have these corridors, and they reportedly make bus travel a faster and more efficient experience. As it stands now, vehicular traffic over the East River has no rhyme or reason. The RFK Triboro Bridge, Battery and Midtown Tunnels already charge to cross into Manhattan. The 59th St., Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges don't. There is, of course, no feasible way to install toll booths at these crossings without creating perpetual gridlock. Technology being what it is, however, that problem can likely be overcome.
In the interest of fairness and the future of the city's transit system, this plan should be implemented, but with modifications. All bridges and tunnels over the East River should cost no more to cross than it does to come into Manhattan from New Jersey. That's not currently the case. This means they should all cost no more than $8 dollars round trip. The Harlem River crossings should be nominal, since the bridge spans are much shorter, no more than $5 dollars round trip.
Yes, it's going to hurt, but a 23% increase in the subway and bus fare would hurt more. What do you think?
You can imagine the reception the latter got. Lawmakers from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx screamed bloody murder. This they've done every time the notion of tolls on those bridges has come up. That's precisely why they' re still free. Yet we live in different times. Although a New York Times analysis says the payroll tax alone would plug the budget gap, the tolls would serve another useful purpose. It's proposed to use that money to fund an expansion of existing bus service, from the creation of new depots to the creation of dedicated bus corridors that would be separate from other traffic.
This proposal is intriguing, and worth a look of its own. Many cities already have these corridors, and they reportedly make bus travel a faster and more efficient experience. As it stands now, vehicular traffic over the East River has no rhyme or reason. The RFK Triboro Bridge, Battery and Midtown Tunnels already charge to cross into Manhattan. The 59th St., Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges don't. There is, of course, no feasible way to install toll booths at these crossings without creating perpetual gridlock. Technology being what it is, however, that problem can likely be overcome.
In the interest of fairness and the future of the city's transit system, this plan should be implemented, but with modifications. All bridges and tunnels over the East River should cost no more to cross than it does to come into Manhattan from New Jersey. That's not currently the case. This means they should all cost no more than $8 dollars round trip. The Harlem River crossings should be nominal, since the bridge spans are much shorter, no more than $5 dollars round trip.
Yes, it's going to hurt, but a 23% increase in the subway and bus fare would hurt more. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
