Loving Boeing

Well, Valentine's Day is just around the corner.  And so is another union vote at the Boeing factory in North Charleston.  I know this because, in the way good ole employers have of helping us figure out how to think, Boeing has rolled out some shiny new ads.  Not only that, I saw them during Saturday Night Live, so I'm assuming they especially want to help all their young employees make this tough decision.  And at great expense, I might add.

Here in South Carolina, the people in charge don't want us to waste our money on unions.  Boeing explained that they are just the greatest place to work, they have good jobs with good pay and are just swell bosses.  In one of the ads a very nice looking older man named Scott Hibbs was playing the guitar, and then he told us what a great place Boeing is to work.  And at the end of that commercial, there was the following disclaimer:

VOTE NO

The appearance of any individual employee in this video is not intended to, and does not, indicate whether that individual employee supports or opposes union representation.  Nothing in this video should suggest that any individual appearing therein holds a particular opinion either way regarding union representation.

PAID FOR BY BOEING

So, in case you didn't stop the ad so you could read the fine print, Boeing wants you to know that that nice guy Scott Hibbs wasn't saying he was for or against unions.  If you didn't stop the ad, though, what you mostly saw was "VOTE NO."

I just have to ask myself why a smart employer like Boeing would decide to spend a whole lot of money just to tell its employers they shouldn't waste their money on union dues.  Of course, it did that last time the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers tried to get up a vote for the union.  With Nikki Haley's able pro-big-business, union-busting assistance, Boeing was able to generate enough animosity that the union had to postpone its vote.

Again, why?  If Boeing is such a swell employer, why would they even care if an employee was a union member?  In fact, there are some really great employers out there who are happy to have the union to mediate contracts.

It seems to me that I had heard at some point that Boeing was making employees work consecutive Saturdays.  It seemed that employees with families or even those who wanted to have a weekend off just had no choice.  Just like at McDonald's.

The other thing I heard is a bunch of those great jobs Haley bragged about when she gave Boeing all those tax incentives to come exploit our workers may not be as secure as we would have thought.  According to the Post & Courier, Boeing will be making "job and other financial cuts."  The way I think this might play out is that management might insinuate that joining a union might create an environment in which Boeing might have to let more people go.  And then after the vote they will let them go anyway.  Just sayin'.

In my many years, I've held a few union jobs, and a few non-union jobs.  Without doubt, the best pay and the best benefits came with union membership.  Which is really why Boeing is going to hard-sell their anti-union message.  Don't forget, they moved to South Carolina not just because Nikki Haley gave away the store to score political points getting them here, but also because they were able to take advantage of the absence of a union and pay lower wages than at their Seattle location.

Here in Charleston, the Chamber of Commerce and the Charleston Regional Development Alliance are spreading the anti-union word that a union at Boeing would be bad for Charleston.  Note that besides cheer-leading for Boeing and other big businesses and telling us that a "yes" vote could very well be bad for all of us, Chamber CEO Bryan Derreberry adds, "A 'no' vote doesn't guarantee continued growth in South Carolina."

So I would encourage anyone at Boeing who is wondering whether they should vote to unionize on February 15, don't ask the employer that holds all the cards whether they think you should have some of that control.  Ask a union member.

From time to time I have union members doing some work at my home:  AT&T, UPS and others.  They have all been proud union members.  They understand that whatever they pay in union dues, they get it back in job security, good wages, benefits, and working conditions.  A union means it is not each employee standing alone against management.  It means that management can't change the rules of the game without input from employees.

Boeing is spending a lot of money right now to convince its employees that they don't need to have that input.  "Trust us" may not be the argument you want to bank on. 

Hearing Bernie

I was there last night, at the Charleston rally for Bernie Sanders.  His throat was raw from the schedule he's been on, but after a few minutes he got his voice back.  He is pure momentum, determined to tell us unequivocally where he stands.  And as far as I have been able to tell, he stands for what is right for democracy and for the American people on every issue.

His arguments are clear.  Unchecked greed has fueled the hate and divisiveness that has caused the hard-working middle class to turn against itself.  That fraction of a percent that owns this country has kept us focused on all the ways we are different from each other and makes sure that we feel threatened by those differences.  It works, because while we are fighting about race, abortion and sexuality, our rights are being stolen out from under us.  Our right to privacy, our right to health care, education and a living wage, our right to feel safe on the streets -- all being undermined so that the powerful can continue to control us.  It happened in Nazi Germany, hate and jealousy allowing a maniac total control.

Well, the crowd last night was energized.  Each person was not there just for their own interest, but for all of us.  It was more like what I once thought our country could be than I have seen in some time.  When I left, my heart was full.

As I left, I passed a couple of booths between the doors and the parking lot.  One sign said something to the effect of, "some things you should know about socialists."  A woman at the other booth asked me if I wanted a copy of The Militant.  At first I thought these were right-wingers attempting to rile up the crowd.  But it seems they were proponents of radical socialism.

In Charleston as well as across the nation, Black Lives Matter is an important group that hopefully will not let us forget that racism is alive and well and needs to be confronted.  As many times as it takes.

I hope that the activists, socialists, African Americans, and all the others, keep fighting for those whose rights are being denied, who live in fear and poverty, who are treated as though they are not real American citizens.  I hope that they fight the right battles, and oppose the real enemies.  While the riots of the 1968 Democratic Convention had legitimate purpose, it resulted in Richard Nixon in the White House.  We can't afford that, with Donald Trump and the rest of the republican line-up appealing to all those who have been fed hatred and fear since the shock of 9-11.

For those who care to know, socialism is neither communism nor fascism.  For others, they have been taught to respond to the word as though it is the ultimate evil.  People who are beginning to listen to Bernie Sanders with some interest should not be hit on the head with The Militant or facts about socialism.  And African-Americans should know that Bernie is about leveling the playing field for us all, and of course within that goal black lives will matter because they have been affected by hate more than most others of us.

So this is indeed an opportunity to be heard.  But it is also an opportunity to reach out to those who have been manipulated and isolated by the right-wing.  Bernie Sanders sees an America where the middle class works together instead of against each other, and where that middle class understands that helping those that are struggling will make all lives better.

Who the Hell Is Mark Daniels?

It's got all the magic words in it.  He's got lots of titles, with the words "progressive" and "alliance," "marketing and environmental affairs," and "sustainability and environmental policy."  He been a chairman, a vice president, and a senior vice president.  He's worked for The American Progressive Plastic Bag Alliance, Novolex and Hilex Poly (which appears to be owned by Novolex).

Most important, what he does is create doubt about the value of banning plastic bags.  He has done it wherever the need arises.  He did it in 2011 (even got the Huffington Post to feature him as a member of its "signature lineup of contributors."  He has been on the front lines fighting the ban in California, and then fighting to have the ban repealed.  Now he is in Charleston, putting his well-heeled nose into the Isle of Palms and their attempt to ban plastic bags.

And he is using the same arguments.

Why is he doing this?  Because he represents plastic bag manufacturers.  This item, made from the petroleum chemical polyethylene, is easy to throw away, and who knows what happens to those recycling bins at the grocery store?  They litter the environment, and blow into windshields on roadways.  They are a hazard to animals and a cause of greenhouse gas.

But they make lots of money for Novolex.  And Novolex pays Mark Daniels well for coming to places like Charleston and getting papers like our Post & Courier to feature his lies and distortions.

Those scientists and environmentalists who support the ban on plastic bags don't have the deep pockets of the petroleum corporations.  The reason communities have gotten together to ban these items is because they see the damage that is done by them.  When people like Mark Daniels come to town and throw around their propaganda it is likely that far more people are going to see his editorials than will ever see factual articles by scientists and environmental organizations.  Which is why what he does works.

So please share this post and spread the word.  Charleston is being invaded, not just by litter, but by corporate interests that want to prevent us from cutting their profits by trying to clean up our beautiful towns.  Isle of Palms, beware.

The Other Side of the Gun Control Debate

First of all, I'm not going to talk about Newtown.  It was a tragedy that resulted a year ago in the killing of twenty children, and was followed by the abomination of lobbying that has prevented -- a year later -- the gun control that the American people were calling for.

And I'm not here to talk about the "other side" of the debate that pretends to make the 2nd Amendment about a right handed down by God and our founding fathers for all of us to be able to be armed to the teeth.

The other side of the argument that all us citizens need to be armed has a great deal to do with how armed our police have become.  While we weren't looking, we went from the creation of well trained SWAT teams to be used in cases of extreme threat to small town SWAT teams with military weaponry and little training who are very excited about using their new toys.

We're not talking about breaking into houses that hold caches of weapons, nor are we talking about busting large drug cartels, although we hear plenty about it on the rare occasion that it happens.  The invasions into private homes today are nearly always about finding small amounts of drugs, often for private use, or breaking up friendly poker games.  Damage is done to homes, pets are shot.  The terror is coming, today, from our own police forces.

And far too often, those SWAT raids happen at the wrong address, or with misinformation that has not been adequately corroborated.

We hear about our police on the front lines risking their lives as though our neighborhoods were war zones.  We have come to accept that innocents can be harassed, homes broken into, without warrants, without warning, because otherwise drugs might be flushed, guns might be used against the police in the time it takes to assure citizens their rights.

Community policing should be, and once was, intended to be a friendly police presence in the community.  Today it has become an "us against them" mentality, wherein the police in the community need to be on the lookout for all of us citizens, who may be breaking the law.  The crimes we are suspected of range from carrying dope to looking like an illegal immigrant.

We may be thinking that "stop and frisk" is on its way out in New York, but that remains to be seen.  Despite the polite phraseology, Arizona's "papers, please" law has resulted in increased harassment by and fear of the local police.

A few years ago, my daughter, then an undergraduate at a university in another state, commented that while there were unsolved rapes in the college community, police presence was high but more often associated with random stops for suspicion of driving under the influence than for preventing dangerous criminal activity.  And where the police force has a SWAT team, while bulletproof vests and military weaponry might allow some police to feel safer, they are likely to use that force against small or questionable crimes.  If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.  

Radley Balko has written quite a bit about the militarization of our police.  His book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces,  is extensively researched and an essential component in understanding America's fixation on fire power.  We may all believe that the police need that weaponry to protect themselves from criminals, but what if the criminals are perceived to be us?  What is the cost, in lives, in quality of life, in dollars, to protect police whose primary duty once was to protect us?

As the police escalate their war against those suspected criminals among us, the pressure is on to defend ourselves, isn't it?  Maybe the solution to all this obsession with guns and defense is a de-escalation on both sides.

What?  You think I'm being paranoid?  Overreacting?  How about a $658,000 armored vehicle designed to "protect SWAT team officers... from dangerous confrontations?"  You may think we don't need one here, but now that Columbia has one, maybe Charleston is next in line.  After all, here in South Carolina we may not want those federal Medicaid dollars, but you never know when you might need a tank to break up one of those illegal poker games.