A new Obama administration rule
that will speed up the process for workers to unionize will take effect,
and it could have a big impact on unionization.
An Obama administration
rule that speeds up the process by which employees can unionize will
take effect Tuesday after Republicans last month failed to block the
measure.
Under the new National Labor Relations Board rules,
employees could potentially organize a union in less than two weeks,
compared to the previous average of 38 days between the time a petition
is filed and the election is held.
Labor groups say this will prevent management from
needlessly delaying union elections. But Republicans and business groups
contend it will not give companies enough time to prepare for union
elections.
Outraged Republicans and business groups are
accusing the Obama administration of promoting ambush union
organization, but the reality is that the new NLRB rule was put into
place to address a serious problem. Anti-union businesses have used the
period between elections to foot drag, delay, and mount campaigns filled
with thinly veiled threats of job loss in order to discourage
unionization.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, unionized workers earn $200 a week more than non-union workers. When benefits are included unionized employees earn $425 a week more
than non-union employees. Increasing private sector unionization rates
is an essential component to any plan to grow the middle-class. Any
change that makes it easier for workers to unionize is a positive
development.
Over
the last three decades, the deck has been stacked by Republicans
against unions. President Obama’s new rule is an important step towards
unions finally being able to fight back.
In a strongly worded veto threat, the White House
shredded Republicans for a bill that would give millionaires and
billionaires a tax cut that averages $3 million each.
The White House issued a stern veto threat of the latest Republican attempt to repeal the Estate Tax:
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1105,
which would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit to
provide large tax cuts exclusively to the very wealthiest Americans.
Repealing the estate tax exclusively benefits just
the wealthiest one or two estates out of every thousand—which would
receive a tax cut averaging more than $3 million each—because current
law already exempts more than $5 million of wealth for individuals and
more than $10 million of wealth for couples from the tax. Given these
large exemptions, well over 99 percent of Americans, including virtually
all small businesses and family farms, do not pay any estate tax. H.R.
1105 would also shift a greater share of the tax burden onto working
Americans at a time when the top one percent already holds more than 40
percent of the Nation’s wealth and wealth disparities have risen to
levels not seen since the 1930s.
H.R. 1105 is fiscally irresponsible and, if enacted,
would add $269 billion to the deficit over ten years, according to the
Joint Committee on Taxation. The bill would worsen the Nation’s
long-term fiscal challenges, jeopardizing programs and investments
important to the middle class and national security. In addition, H.R.
1105, which was reported by the House Ways and Means Committee on March
25, is inconsistent with the budget resolution passed by the House of
Representatives that same day, which depends on current law estate tax
revenues to meet its purported fiscal goals.
H.R. 1105 is even more extreme than the temporary
estate tax repeal enacted in 2001. That legislation provided for a
“carryover basis” regime to prevent large amounts of accumulated wealth
from escaping both income and estate tax. H.R. 1105 contains no such
provision. Instead, it leaves in place the largest capital gains
loophole in the tax code by retaining “stepped-up basis” rules that
exempt capital gains on assets held until death from income taxes. The
wealthiest Americans can often afford to hold onto assets until death,
which lets them use the stepped-up basis loophole to avoid ever having
to pay income tax on capital gains. By retaining stepped-up basis even
after repealing the estate tax, enactment of H.R. 1105 would not only
add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit to provide huge tax
cuts to the most fortunate, it would endorse the principle that the
wealthiest Americans should not have to pay tax on certain forms of
income at all. By contrast, the President’s Budget would repeal the
stepped-up basis loophole.
The Administration has consistently supported tax
relief for middle-class and working families. The President’s FY 2016
Budget proposes tax credits that allow paychecks to go further in
covering the cost of child care, college, and a secure retirement, and
would create and expand tax credits that support and reward work. In
addition, it would invest in accelerating and sharing economic growth
through education, research, infrastructure, and help for working
families. The President’s proposals are fully paid for, primarily by
closing tax loopholes for the highest-income Americans. The
Administration wants to work with the Congress on fiscally responsible
tax relief for middle-class and working Americans. However, H.R. 1105
represents the wrong approach to the Nation’s fiscal and economic
challenges. If the President were presented with H.R. 1105, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
The latest gift for millionaires and billionaires is
a classic example of what Republicans mean fiscal responsibility.
Boehner and McConnell see nothing wrong with adding $269 billion to the
deficit as long as the money is going to the people who need it the
least. All of the Republican budgets cut taxes for millionaires and
billionaires while raising taxes on the poor and middle class because
that is how the Republican economic ideology operates.
The GOP continues to be guided by fantasies like
“job creators,” and the myths that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs
and trickle-down economics works. If it weren’t for President Obama,
some or all of these horrible policies would be the law of the land.
As
the media looks towards 2016, President Obama continues to fight for
the middle-class and serve as the last line of defense against
Republican economic failure.
The resultant Republican freakout is not unexpected, as it violates
not only the status quo but further silences the drums of war…
Now that president Obama has followed up his normalization of relations
with Cuba with being the first president since 1958 to formally meet
with Cuba (Saturday, at the Summit of the Americas), As the White House
blog explains, he has decided as of Tuesday to remove Cuba from the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
In a statement, the White House said,
After a careful review
of Cuba’s record, which was informed by the intelligence community, as
well as assurances provided by the Cuban government, the Secretary of
State concluded that Cuba met the conditions for rescinding its
designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
The hapless Speaker of the House, John Boehner, had
to see this coming. It was insisted on by Raul Castro, Obama had
forecast his intentions, and the United States could hardly go forward
befriending a country it considers a state sponsor of terror.
President Obama and
President Castro discussed our shared histories, and the significant
change in policy and the relationship between our two countries. Both
leaders agreed that the majorities of the American people and Cuban
people had responded positively to the thaw in relations.
And this is true. Despite all the horrified reactions of Republican champions of the Cold War status quo, Obama received high approval ratings for his Cuba initiative. The blog goes on to state,
President Obama
announced that both Cuba and America were working on the next step in
normalizing diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, and were
working to open embassies in both Havana and Washington, D.C.
This is bad enough, but saying that Cuba is, in essence, no longer wearing a black hat, violates the GOP’s either/or paradigm.
John Boehner’s reaction to anybody actually DOING
anything was predictable. It shakes the status quo and makes Congress
look bad when the president does things, like try to keep the country
running, and affects GOP INC’s bottom line when he works to reduce
tensions in the world.
Obama saying, “I think what we have both concluded
is that we can disagree with the spirit of respect and civility, and
that over time it is possible for us to turn the page and develop a new
relationship in our two countries,” is not what they want to hear.
Such talk silences the drums along the Potomac.
So Boehner released this ridiculous statement in response, which to be fair, is about as well-thought-out as anything else Boehner has said or done since 2009:
I am disappointed that
the White House seems determined to reward the Castro regime, which has a
clear record of repression at home and exporting violence throughout
the region. Not even a week has passed since the brutal attacks on Cuban democracy protestors in Panama City during the Summit for the Americas.
Those attacks – and the Castros’ long history of human rights
violations — demonstrate the folly of revisiting diplomatic relations
with this communist dictatorship and removing it from the State
Department’s list of state sponsors of terror.
Cozying up to the oppressive regime in Cuba is a
blow to all who long for liberty and dignity. And it’s just one more
example of this administration focusing more on befriending our enemies
than helping our allies. The United States has a responsibility to stand
strong for all those who struggle for freedom, and the House of
Representatives is committed to doing its part.
It is rather amusing to see Boehner accuse the
Castro regime of repression when you consider our own history of
repression, not only in the most well-known case of blacks during the
Civil Rights era, but of anti-war protesters during the Vietnam War
(Kent State anyone?), of the Occupy Movement, and most recently,
Ferguson protestors and those championing the radical idea that Black
Lives Matter – not to mention the routine gunning down of black men by
police for no justifiable reason in the first place.
We might mention South Carolina Republicans telling the Supreme Court that it’s okay to discriminate not only against gays but against women.
Boehner attacks Cuba for human rights violations
even as Guantanamo continues to function, even though Boehner’s own
party endorsed – and continues to endorse – torture in violation of international law.
And he calls Cuba a repressive regime when some of our allies are at least as repressive, if not more so – like Saudi Arabia.
The White House said,
We will continue to
have differences with the Cuban government, but our concerns over a wide
range of Cuba’s policies and actions fall outside the criteria that is
relevant to whether to rescind Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism.
And Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said on April 10,
Well, I think in terms
of differences between our government, we have been very clear that
we’re going to continue to speak up for human rights, and we’re going to
continue to have differences as it relates to the nature of Cuba’s
political system — just as I would fully anticipate the Cuban government
to make clear its opposition to the United States’ ongoing presence at
Guantanamo Bay, for instance.
And the Obama administration and Bernie Sanders are
right. Cuba’s alleged sponsorship of terror has nothing to do with
repressive domestic policies, despite Boehner’s attempt to tie them all
together in a blanket condemnation.
Boehner’s refusal to take a good, hard, pragmatic
look at the nature of our long history with Cuba is the problem, not
Obama’s insistence that we take cognizance of the facts, both historic
and current.
John
Boehner talks of those who struggle for freedom even while fighting to
deny his fellow citizens freedom. His words are, as always, empty,
dishonest, and hypocritical.
Editor's Note: Just in case you are unfamiliar with the German language "Ich Bin Ein Dummkopf" translates as 'I am a fool'. (Literal translation - I am one fool)
But if you so desire the word fool can be substituted with, idiot, moron, cretin, lack-wit, buffoon, etc.
So now, they are all for cutting off their noses in spite of their faces.
The republican base is the ignorant unwashed minority and could not pass a literacy test is their life depended on it.
The majority of the people they hope to eliminate from voting - Minorities, The Elderly, Students (all groups that vote Democrat) will have no problem passing any literacy tests these misanthropic dullards could come up with.
But it is a moot point there will never be 'literacy' test required to vote and all these 'laws' to restrict voting will be eliminated in the next couple of years along with gerrymandering of voting districts that allow the losers (Republicans) by at least a 2 to 1 margin in most places to steal elections and claim to be the 'winners'. North Carolina is a prime example of this - the governor and the entirety of the Republicans in the legislature received the minority of the vote yet due to gerrymandering and dubious vote counts they stole the election and have been butt-fucking North Carolina without the benefit of lube since, driving the state that was once at the top of the nation in several categories to the bottom in those categories and more.
At a campaign event in Iowa, Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came out in support of a
constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
During a roundtable with students in Iowa, Clinton said:
I want to be the
champion who goes to bat for Americans in four big areas, four big
fights that I think we have to take on because there are those who don’t
agree with what I think we should be doing, and they’re pretty powerful
forces.
We need build the economy of tomorrow, not
yesterday. We need to strengthen families and communities because that’s
where it all starts. We need to fix our dysfunctional political system,
and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if it
takes a constitutional amendment, and we need to protect our country
from the threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.
Clinton’s answer represents a strengthening of her position against Citizens United. Last year, she answered a question on Citizens United by saying,
“I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines that would
prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money
if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen’s United decision.”
It is interesting that out of the four areas that
she deemed the big fights getting the dark money out of politics was the
one with the most detail. Those who were worried about whether Hillary
Clinton would be progressive enough to represent the more liberal wing
of the Democratic Party are seeing their concerns addressed quickly by
former Sec. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton’s support for a constitutional
amendment to repeal Citizens United is a big deal. Clinton looks like a
vastly different candidate compared to her 2008 campaign for the
Democratic nomination. Early on, it appears that Clinton has been
listening to where the Democratic Party has shifted.
The issue of the wealthy and corporations being able
to buy our democracy through unlimited and unaccountable campaign
contributions is the biggest current threat to our electoral and
political systems. The impact of Citizens United can be witnessed in the
behavior the current Republican-controlled Congress. Republicans only
care about their big donors, which is why they pursue an agenda that is
the opposite of the priorities of the vast majority of the American
people.
Hillary
Clinton is hitting the campaign trail running, and her support for
repealing Citizens United means that if she is elected to serve as the
next President Of The United States, those who want to see Citizens
United repealed will have a champion in the White House.
Republicans oppose equal pay for equal work. Senate Republicans blocked three times.
Last week, Republicans Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
and Susan Collins (ME) joined Deb Fischer (R-NB) and Shelly Moore Capito
(W. VA) introduced a shiny object substitute for equal pay called The Workplace Advancement Act.
The GOP’s poor imitation of the Paycheck Fairness
Act, is more about optics than about substance, as reflected in Deb
Fischer’s statement on the proposed law.
Any legislator –
Republican or Democrat – who is seriously interested in making progress
on this issue for women and moving past electioneering and scoring
political points should step up and support the proposal. For the first
time in over half a century, we have the opportunity to update the
Equal Pay Act with a bill that actually provides needed changes and can
realistically pass.
The fact is if Republicans were serious about
paycheck fairness, they would have either voted for the Paycheck
Fairness Act or at least offered a bill that offers real solutions.
This bill doesn’t even recognize that gender-based
pay discrimination is a fact at all income levels and in all job
categories. It merely states, “surveys suggest there is a concern among American women that gender-based pay discrimination still exists.”
The fact is while we can try to explain pay
discrimination away because women took time off to care for children and
family members, or we just gravitate to low paying jobs, when women
hold the same title and job experience as a man, a wage gap persists.
The gap narrows as you go further up the corporate ladder, but it
continues to exist even at the top of that ladder.
A recent study on pay discrimination against women executives showed that
Women in executive positions receive less incentive pay than men. That accounts for roughly 93% of the gender pay gap.
Compensation for women in executive positions has “lower pay-performance sensitive” compared to males.
Compensation for female executives is more exposed to declines in
the firm’s value and less exposed to increases in the firm’s value than
that of male executives.”
The Republican version of an equal pay bill falls
way short of the Democrat’s Paycheck Fairness Act. That bill contained
several important features. It mandated employers to provide the
Federal government with wage data broken down by gender. It called for
programs to help women with negotiation skills. It also provided
assistance to help women sue to get back pay they were denied
exclusively because they were discriminated against by their employers.
The one feature the Republican version holds in
common with the Paycheck Fairness Act, is the language that makes it
illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for talking about
their salaries.
The thing is, this bill doesn’t allow any legal
recourse for women to sue their boss upon finding out they were paid
less than male counterparts. After all, giving women the ability to sue
to rectify the situation would just be “bait” for trial lawyers and we
certainly can’t have that!
The bill allows pay disparities based on “merit” or “any factor other than sex”. As we saw in Ellen Pao’s case,
that’s a pretty difficult, if not outright impossible thing to argue
against. In other words, between the lack of enforceability and the
legal cover that employers can use to continue gender-based
discriminatory pay practices, the Republican bill preserves the very
unfairness they say they are trying to address.
The Republicans are hoping that women will fall for
shiny object equality. They’re fine with us finding the proof that we
are paid lower than male counterparts; they just have a problem with us
using the law to do anything about it.
The politics of this are even more sinister, though consistent with the Republican Party’s playbook.
They are trying to bait Democrats into voting for a
bill that does nothing to address gender-based pay discrimination. If
they do, Republicans will claim credit for letting us talk to our
co-workers about salary, as a solution to gender-based pay
discrimination. If they don’t, Republicans will do what they usually do
– project their opposition to paycheck fairness onto the Democrats.
The reality is; women know the difference between shiny object pay equality and the real thing.
As wingnuts race to derail Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning
the presidency, it’s clear that their main strategy is to use her gender
as the reason why she shouldn’t be the leader of the free world.
Sean Hannity took to his throne toilet over in the delusional echo chamber
of misogyny that is Fox News to opine on the one thing wingnuts
really should...
The lead of this story from Denver's CBS affiliate pretty much says it all:.
A CBS4 investigation has learned that two Transportation Security
Administration screeners at Denver International Airport have been fired
after they were discovered manipulating passenger screening systems to
allow a male TSA employee to fondle the genital areas of attractive male
passengers.
The details: TSA supervisors, acting on an anonymous tip, found
that a female agent running a body scanner would intentionally
misidentify attractive male passengers as females within the scanner's
operating system. The scanner would then identify an "anomaly" in those
passengers' genital areas-seemingly because they had, well, more bulk in
the groin region than would be expected from a woman. The male agent
would then have an excuse to pat down those male passengers' groins.
The
male agent was said to "alert" the female agent when he wanted a
specific man targeted, presumably by using whichever American Sign
Language symbol means "let's both get fired for the stupidest possible
reason."
