Comments on: Banks are using rescue funds to fund anti-union activities

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:50:31 +0000

Actually, Joshua, the fact that the people trying to reduce union protection are aided by the lack of penalties in the current law is an excellent argument for EFCA. Greg, is this something like what you were hoping for?

By: Joshua Zelinsky

Joshua Zelinsky — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:09:20 +0000

Greg, no argument there. Unfortunately my impression is that the banks aren’t using this money at all how they should be. I’m aware of at least two not so large but well off businesses which are trying to get credit to handle temporary cash flow issues. In one case, the business has a lot of orders and simply needs to be able to order the necessary raw materials themselves in the meantime. In both cases the businesses have so far been told to more or less pound sand. At this point, I’m beginning to think that the banks and the auto industry really both just deserve to fail.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:02:51 +0000

Joshua: I agree. But I also maintain that the banks should not be paying for this at this time. Or corporate junkets. Or new shoelaces. Or anything they don’t absolutely need.

By: Joshua Zelinsky

Joshua Zelinsky — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:58:29 +0000

Greg, I don’t think anyone sane would argue that we aren’t obviously much better off on the whole with unions than without unions. And I don’t think anyone would argue that there aren’t people trying to substantially reduce many current union protections. But neither of those is an argument that we either need more union protection or an argument against specific adjustments to the laws that apply to unions.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:05:22 +0000

We are all looking forward to a post explaining what we are talking about.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:54:12 +0000

Now, that would be telling, wouldn’t it?

By: dan

dan — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:51:11 +0000

When will they become accountable?

very punny…

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:46:09 +0000

Let me guess. One of us. That being you. Right? Are you going to write this up for the rest of us??????

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:29:49 +0000

Ooh, as long as we’re polling, how many people talking so strongly about the EFCA and what it does have read it and the National Labor Relations Act, which it amends?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:17:53 +0000

1) Right now, banks should not be doing a single thing with their fungable money but dealing with the current crisis. Anti union activities are non-essential (even if you think they are important) in the short or medium term. This is as abusive of their privilege as corporate junkets.

2) Of course there is an “anti union movement” and indeed it is in little bits and pieces everywhere. That is the problem.

Quiz with three questions:

1) How many people in management have been murdered or maimed by union activity?

2) How many people in Unions or their families have been killed or maimed by management activities not counting workplace injuries that wold not have happened had there been union-backed workplace safety rules?

3) Recalculate 2 but to include workplace injuries prior to the implementation of union backed rules?

Much of that is in the past, but it has to be on the table.