tagged w/ regulations
-
If organized labor were to list the three worst things that could happen to it, one of them would surely be having the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board, established in 1935) close up shop. While the NLRB hasn't always performed to labor's satisfaction (indeed, its reluctance to act has been the source of consternation and heartburn), it has, nonetheless, proven itself indispensable.
When companies purposely sabotage union elections, or when they refuse to recognize a legal vote to join or form a union, or when they fail to enter into the collective bargaining process in good faith, or when they violate federal labor law by firing employees engaged in union membership drives, it's the Labor Board who hears the complaint. Without the NLRB, none of these ULPs (Unfair Labor Practices) can be addressed.
Yet, as critically important as the NLRB is, there's a chance it will be put out of business come the first of the year. Due to a 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court, unless the 5-member NLRB has a quorum (i.e., a minimum of three members), it is illegal for it to hand down decisions. In other words, unless there are at least three members present, the NLRB has no power to stop management from violating federal labor law. They can violate it with impunity. Without the NLRB, employees could vote overwhelmingly to join a union, and the company could simply ignore them. Who's to stop them?
Here's how it stands. Republicans have not only steadfastly refused to confirm President Obama's appointees (leaving the Board without a quorum), but they have threatened to strip the Board of its operating budget, basically wiping it out. No money, no NLRB. Incredibly, with the whole country watching from the sidelines -- with unemployment still high and the gap between rich and poor continuing to widen -- the Republican Party has audaciously and fearlessly declared war on America's working class.
As gutless as President Obama has been in regard to labor (e.g., backing away from the EFCA, abandoning striker replacement legislation, failing to respond to attacks on the teachers' union, et al), he's been caught in the middle of this NLRB deal. On the one hand, by nominating solidly pro-union people to the Board he has appeased organized labor, but on the other hand, he has mobilized Republican opposition.
In truth, that's a bit of a false dichotomy. It is Obama's job to behave like a traditional, pro-labor Democrat, and, if anything, he has been woefully derelict in that regard. Also, despite the Republican's hysterical smear campaign, we shouldn't pretend that the people Obama has nominated are "radicals." In the 1960s and 1970s these same folks would have been considered "enlightened centrists," plain and simple. In the 1940s, they would've been considered "pro-business."
Unfortunately, some nominal "pro-labor" activists have publicly criticized Obama for not being more accommodating, for not being more pragmatic, more practical. They've criticized him for failing to appoint Board members who would automatically appeal to the Republicans, as if it were Obama's job to abandon America's working class in order to please John Boehner and his corporate sponsors.
But let's be honest. If the Republican Party had its way, there would be no NLRB, no OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and, very likely, no Department of Labor. What prevented the elimination of those agencies was America's political landscape. But the contour of that landscape has changed dramatically.
In the 1970s the Republican Party wouldn't have dared suggest, not in its wildest dreams, that the NLRB and OSHA be dismantled. After all, it was a Republican administration that created OSHA. Considering the country's mood at the time, organized labor's influence, and, arguably, the respect working people still enjoyed, eliminating the Labor Board would have been considered, among other things, "unpatriotic." How things have changed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/republicans-declare-war-o_1_b_1158394.html?view=print&comm_ref=falseIf organized labor were to list the three worst things that could happen to it, one of... more
-
-
Illustration by Daniel Pudles
It's the disguise used by those who wish to exploit without restraint, denying the need for the state to protect the 99%
Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the rightwing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?
In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.
Rightwing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Policy Exchange. Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.
So why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterised as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to mangle it too badly.
Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will.
Rightwing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are closet communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive freedom. In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.
As Berlin noted: "No man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'." So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be curtailed "to secure the freedom of others". In other words, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend.
Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude on other values, such as justice, equality or human happiness. "If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral." It follows that the state should impose legal restraints on freedoms that interfere with other people's freedoms – or on freedoms which conflict with justice and humanity.
These conflicts of negative freedom were summarised in one of the greatest poems of the 19th century, which could be seen as the founding document of British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. "Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free."
The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by characterising the tree as an impediment to freedom – his freedom, which he conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man. Clare then compares the felling of the tree with further intrusions on his liberty. "Such was thy ruin, music-making elm; / The right of freedom was to injure thine: / As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm / In freedom's name the little that is mine."
But rightwing libertarians do not recognise this conflict. They speak, like Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even – among the gun nuts – to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterise any attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow.
Last week, on an internet radio channel called The Fifth Column, I debated climate change with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, one of the rightwing libertarian groups that rose from the ashes of the Revolutionary Communist party. Fox is a feared interrogator on the BBC show The Moral Maze. Yet when I asked her a simple question – "do you accept that some people's freedoms intrude upon other people's freedoms?" – I saw an ideology shatter like a windscreen. I used the example of a Romanian lead-smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbours. Surely the plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms – freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning – of its neighbours? She tried several times to answer it, but nothing coherent emerged which would not send her crashing through the mirror of her philosophy.
Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned "freedom" into an instrument of oppression.
A fully referenced version of this article can be found at http://www.monbiot.comIllustration by Daniel Pudles
It's the disguise used by those who wish to... more
-
-
If you get into a conversation about corporate and political corruption your bound to run into the “regulation paradox”. This is just a vague term that I sometimes use to describe the catch-22 that exists when you put a government in charge of overseeing business and social matters. Allowing the government to regulate social matters is like having a fox guard the henhouse; while expecting them to regulate business is like trusting convict to guard a jailhouse.
This not only results in a philosophical paradox, but it also causes widespread panic and confusion amongst the general population as well, which is easy to see if you walk out your front door or turn on any kind of media. Almost every time that some natural law crises pops up, it is usually perpetrated by state and corporate entities working together, so there really is no line of defense for the average person. I guess it all boils down to the age old question of “Who watches the watchers?”
To put that into context lets rephrase that question and ask “how can the general public oversee important matters in a mass decentralized fashion to level the playing field and actually prevent corruption from taking place”? That would definitely have been a pretty hard question before the advent of the Internet, but now it’s starting to seem like this can actually be answered.
Continued............
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/who-watches-watchers-future-of.htmlIf you get into a conversation about corporate and political corruption your bound to... more
-
-
While it is reported that intercepting unencrypted drone communication data streams had first been known to US military since the mid-1990's, this exploitation continued on into 2009 where militant laptops were found with drone data and unencrypted video feeds from Predator drones...
https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/18778-How-the-RQ-170-Was-Hijacked.htmlWhile it is reported that intercepting unencrypted drone communication data streams... more
-
-
-
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and... more
-
-
If we we consider the Occupy movements across the globe, demonstrating and protesting against income inequality and inequitable policies around commerce and taxation, the persistent cart vulnerability could become a seemingly benign form of occupation that could develop into a serious threat...
https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/18630-OWWWS-The-Other-Form-of-Occupy.htmlIf we we consider the Occupy movements across the globe, demonstrating and protesting... more
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Have we now arrived at the point in obtaining medical care that in addition to looking into the medical practitioner's experience and confirming they are compliant with HIPAA, that we now must review their data handling policies before choosing a health care provider?
https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/18525-Are-Your-Health-Records-at-Risk.htmlHave we now arrived at the point in obtaining medical care that in addition to looking... more
-
-
-
-
-
-
