Great (0.00 / 0)

More money for unions. Did you forget who gets to foot the bill? Oh yeah that's right taxpayers. Thank god for no bid government contracting building weapons we don't really want fighting a war that nobody really likes.

---

by: Zugzugzug @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 21:49:23 PM UTC

absolutely correct (0.00 / 0)

70,000 more jobs and billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers.  The majority of which don't see the need for more weapons and a continuance of 2 wars.  Not sure what we are cheering about here.

---

by: RR @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 22:04:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this seems shortsighted way to look at things at best (4.00 / 1)

workers and even unions to some extent have every unquestionable right to fight for their jobs and nationalism may be an inevitable reality in this context, but there is a broader context and history of the american business class and the american working class working together to the detriment of people outside.    

you're talking about building equipment that's going to be used in efforts to kill people and appealing to nationalism and a pro-business/pro-worker alliance- that's not exactly something someone should take on easily.  it's also part of the enormous publicly funded military economy in the united states, which almost creates political demand for more war.

ignoring all this and saying it's an easy choice does a disservice.  imagine if you were talking about a union of prison workers allying themselves with a company that does maintenance on prisons - would it be that easy?  or might you have an objection to the very fact that the contract is being awarded at all.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 22:20:38 PM UTC

misdirect (4.00 / 2)

The policy argument wasn't being discussed, and I imagine most readers here agree that the military needs constrained.

The only option that spends most of the money in the U.S. WAS worth fighting for. Decent, livable wage jobs are exactly what is needed right here and now.

Good work Mike and machinists union officers and members!!

P.S. "the american business class and the american working class working together to the detriment of people outside." is right wing LIES... The highest standard of living ever achieved for the general public was here when unions were the most powerfull. Unions are the only force to ever raise the lifestyle of the general population peacefully.....and unions don't ally with companies, workers represented by a union would probably have better wages and working conditions than nonunion workers doing maintainence work at prisons as is true any other worker.

 

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 01:49:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

unions don't ally with companies? (0.00 / 0)

look, i'm as pro-union as they come.  I WORK at a union, albeit not in the United States, but I'm not going to front about it.  Unions are not perfect.  Unions have assisted the CIA in the past in Latin America.  Unions can be undemocratic, can make mistakes, and can be unfair as well.  They're part of society.

I think increasing union density is among the most important things that can be done today in the United States.  However, this example - of a Union working with a military supplier to boost a military contract in the name of preserving american jobs - you'll forgive me if I think that this misses the point of progressivism.  American jobs are important for americans - but like I said, that doesn't mean that everyone needs to support every form of american jobs - if they eliminate the death penalty, that will probably take away someone's job - that doesn't mean it would be a bad thing to do.  THe point is to put forward at the same time active proposals that generally, and concretely, support workers - both inside and outside the UNited States.

And if you think that decent livable wage jobs are what is needed, then why aren't they needed outside the united states?  shouldn't that be taken into consideration - not in the hypothetical, but at least by talking to UNIONS in other countries?  or other worker organisers?  And understanding that there are differences in international power?

We pay attention to race discrimination, class discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discriminatino - why not discrimination because of the accident of what country you were born in?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 13:24:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So What's Your Point? (0.00 / 0)

That it is immoral to make any kind of military equipment?

In reality, this is great news that the government is forcing these funds to stay here at home. For the past 20 years Boeing has been aggressively moving jobs overseas, as part of its sales plan...and the jobs created domestically are moved out of Puget Sound in order to avoid the unions/local sensibilities. The Renton plant was shut down, HQ moved to Chicago, and a long list of workstreams has been parceled off.

So this is definitely good news. I'm surprised Murray stepped forward on this one...too bad drug importation and anti-usury weren't up for Senate votes during an election year.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:32:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the context (0.00 / 0)

my points were that this isn't as much of an "easy choice" as mike says because:

a) it's immoral to support the u.s. military and the military based economy
b) union-company collaborations are cross-class alliances for a particular end - so what does that mean?
c) a broader social justice analysis has to come into play for outside observers.  if it were me whose job was affected by this, i would probably fight tooth and nail because of the effect it has on my individual life - soldiers are a good example - joining the military is one of the few options that gives mobility in the united states.  but that still doesn't make it 'easy' to see this as a social justice move.

So I undersatnd there are different opinions about things like this, but if you place yourself in the shoes of a worker who is going to be on the receiving end of a u.s. bomb or maybe even someone who is going to see the country they live in remain relatively poor with american workers not extending much solidarity, then I think that there are other ways in which one can look at this and it's not as 'win win' as it is made out to be - particularly for people calling themselves progressive.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 13:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

collaborations? (0.00 / 0)

Definition: 1.To work together especially in a joint intellectual effort. 2.To cooperate treasonably.

Other than volunteering for some free needed social work (build boy scout camp or battered womens shelter for example) the actions described in both definitions are illegal for unions and management to engage in, under U.S. law. The only activities legally allowed is what is described in the labor contract, covering wages and working conditions negotiated and signed by both parties, and approved by the dept. of labor.

Unions are the cleanest and most lawfull group in the U.S. (regardless right wing propaganda) not because they are better peopled, just more strictly enforced on. This is probably due to corporations haveing such outsized influence here.

International cooperation and organizing among workers and their unions are honorable goals, but currently unions are loosing influence and market share here. And this is not because workers don't want to bargin collectively, poles show over 60% of nonunion workers would join a union if they could without fear of illegal reprisal. Again the result of unethical and oversized corporate political power.

Also, U.S. workers have been loosing millions of jobs to other nations workers for 30+ years. We are the only nation without an industrial policy, again due to worker hateing corporations. If the U.S. had worker protection trade policy equal to any other industrial nation, we would be better positioned to help international worker organizing efforts.  

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 17:46:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good response (0.00 / 0)

"International cooperation and organizing among workers and their unions are honorable goals, but currently unions are loosing influence and market share here."

I think this is true - and if this were just a strategic response, I think it would be okay.  I'm certainly not going to dictate to American unions what their best strategic response is.  

But a long history of unions not valuing real and equal solidarity with workers in other countries exists, and it makes me question whether this strategic response is a) the only one and b) informed by values that are not really useful to anyone except the military and corporations.  in the long run, i don't know that it's useful even to american workers to promote a military-industrial economy or to tie themselves to american corporations to protect american jobs and never ever get informed about what's going on outside except in the most surface level ways.

i mean, this isn't a hypothetical - anyone who pays or has paid taxes in the united states is funding bomb-dropping in Pakistan, coups, and many other things.  There's a larger issue that needs to be at least considered here and I didn't feel the post brought that to light.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 17:53:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

also, the u.s. does have an industrial policy (0.00 / 0)

it's deindustrialisation and finance capital and deregulation uber alles and funding of military ventures.

i point this out because market fundamentalists like to pretend that there isn't any kind of political intervention going on but their vision involves SO much in practice.  Kinda like allegedly 'free trade' which is not 'free' and in some cases more like coercion than 'trade.'

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 17:56:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

american corporations became international corporations (0.00 / 0)

If these multinational corporations were only operating in a single nation, they would be easier to deal with nationally. This gives more weight to international coopreation and conserted activity among the involved unions, so I agree all possible effort be put to this end. Also agree that better information to workers is needed, on international issues as well as generally, to counter the propaganda and educate.

I don't know any workers that do or even can tie themselves to multinational corporations, to keep their jobs, that is reserved for management. Nor are there any to my knowledge that favor a military-industrial economy. Of course, current employees would like to keep their jobs, but that does not mean they prefeer to spend public funds on the war machine. After all, workers are the least powerfull in society and have the most to lose in war.

And, yes taxpayers (and credit) fund the war machine, workers taxes too. This fact does not dictate where the production of components is done, and that was the subject of Mike's post. I still believe spending U.S. funds in the U.S. is good business as opposed to spending government money abroad for essentially the same purpose. What would be your position on spending your government's resorses in other nations, especially in times of extreem unemployment at home?

And I guess one could deduce a defacto industrial policy by what the unregulated multinational corporations see as their best interests...continual and worsening exploitation and falling lifestyle of the majority... I was refering to a formal industrial policy, instituted by government to restrain corporate behaviour.  

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 16:09:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

War is Good for Business (0.00 / 0)

Back in my day we used to say "War is good for business.  Invest your sons."

Now I guess we need to say it's good for unions.  Marx would be proud.

---

by: JRD--Iowa @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 04:46:13 AM UTC