9/15/00
In the piece below, CFR = Council on Foreign Relations.
Arguably the most powerful private group in
the United States. TC stands for Trilateral Commission.
An offshoot of the CFR, and a forerunner of the
WTO. The TC is no longer the powerhouse it used to be in
the 70s and 80s. The CFR is still supreme.
These are the elite planning groups which supply the government with
like minded, pro business, Internationalist personnel to lead and
manage the US government as well as corporations, academia, labor,
the military, and the media.
Nurev
---------------------------------
LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL -- In South Korea, France, Israel, Russia,
Germany, and everywhere that Corporate Politicians are attempting to
cut into, and weaken the rights of Labor, Unions and their supportive
populations are in the streets and ready to fight against the erosion
of their standard of living. Conspicuous by their non-action are the
beaten working people of the United States. Here's why.....
FOXES IN THE HENHOUSE ,UNION BOSSES IN THE CFR -- ( past and recent )
I.W.Abel - Pres. United Steel Workers of America also TC
Sol Chick Chaiken - Pres. I.L.G.U. also TC
Thomas R. Donahue - Sec./ Treasurer AFL-CIO also TC
Murray H. Finley - Pres. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Victor Gotbaum - A.F.S.C.M.E.
Lane Kirkland - Longtime President AFL-CIO also TC
Howard D. Samuel - Pres. Industrial Union Dept. AFL-CIO
Marten J. Ward - Plumbers and Pipe Fitting Industry USA & Canada
Glen E. Watts - Pres. Communication Workers of America also TC
Leonard Woodcock (wishful thinking)-Pres. United Auto Workers also TC
Jerry Wurf - Pres. A.F.S.C.M.E.
Jay Mazur, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union also TC
Jack Sheinkman, Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union
Albert Shanker, Pres., American Federation Of Teachers also TC
Look at what has happened to most of these unions since the ruling
business elites got their Neo-Liberal policies established. There is
NO ONE in American politics to represent working people.
--J2--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================================
After sending these union officer income figures out, I was asked
how they compared to earnings of workers these leaders represent.
I am sending the data again with representative earnings of workers
in the related occupations/industries.
Top AFL-CIO Salaries & Earnings of Workers They Typically Represent
====================================================
AFL-CIO Salaries and Benefits/Allowences for 1998
Salary Benefits '98 Annual Earnings
of Workers Represented *
Union Official Salary Benefits Indust Avg. Annual
Earnings
AFSCME, Gerald McEntee: $352,404 $ 16,800 $ 37,076 (all public,
including fedl.)
LIUNA, Arthur A. Coia: 335,674 86,120 27,196 (misc.
construction trades)
ALPA, Randolph Babbitt: 314,995 34,000 92,768 (pilots &
navigators)
HERE, John Wilhelm: 280,793 30,700 20,800 (hotel/motel)
14,872 (eating places)
UFCW, Douglas H. Dority: 264,152 58,167 17,576 (grocery
stores) 30,420 (wholesale food)
AFT, Sandra Feldman: 246,563 94,932 35,805 (kindergarten,
elementary, secondary teachers)
IUOE, Frank Hanley: 231,237 15,600 33,200 (heavy
equipment operators)
SEIU, Andrew Stern: 215,218 7,800 16,016 (janitors)
20,852 (all social services) 21,996 (residential care) 33,072 (all hospital
workers) 36,608 (registered nurses)
AFL-CIO, John J. Sweeney: 199,750 7,250 35,932 (all union
members) 30,004 (all workers)
IBEW, J.J. Barry: 198,533 ?? 36,296 (electricians)
UNITE, Jay Mazur: 196,462 54,796 21,840 (apparel)
26,364 (misc. textile mills) 25,428 (finished textiles)
NEA, Robert F. Chase: 196,427 94,049 35,805 (kindergarten,
elementary, secondary teachers)
BSOIW, Jake West: 196,390 184,750 32,916 (structural
metal workers)
UBC, Douglas J. McCarron: 194,250 28,700 28,496 (carpenters)
CWA, Morton Bahr: 152,762 9,556 41,392 (telecom
workers)
IAM, R.T. Buffenbarger: 142,801 57,871 38,749 (air transport)
27,976 (auto mechanics) 47,802 (aircraft mechanics)
UWSA, George F. Becker: 131,499 22,432 36,083 (iron & steel
blast furnace & forges)
AFGE, Bobby L. Harnage: 122,746 15,109 37,076 (all public
workers)
UAW, Stephen P. Yokich: 112,608 6,900 38,636 (motor vehicles
& equipt.)
UMW, Ronald E. Cecil: 96,224 3,960 40,196 (coal
mining)
_____________________________________________________________
* worker incomes were computed by multiplying average weekly earnings
X 52; where several occupations were combined (i.e., teachers),
weighted averages were computed; in most cases, occupations and in
all cases industry figures include management and supervisors, and
unless specified (Sweeney), include both represented and unrepresented
employees.
Source of worker earnings: Union Membership and Earnings Data Book,
Bureau of National Affairs, 1999.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.progressive.org/comm0700.htm
The Progressive
July 2000
COMMENT
The Nader Challenge
An American labor leader finally got fed up with the betrayals of
the Clinton-Gore Administration. After Bill Clinton exulted over
winning normal permanent trade status for China, Stephen Yokich,
head of the United Auto Workers (UAW), decided he couldn't stand
it any longer.
"President Clinton and Vice President Gore once again have sided
with multinational corporations against workers here and abroad,"
Yokich said. He rightly pointed out that the labor movement was
under cynical attack on this issue and Al Gore was nowhere to be
seen. "America's working families need and deserve a President they
can count on to stand with them on their tough issues, not just
the easy ones," Yokich said.
And Yokich took it to the next level, daring to suggest that labor
should exercise its option not to back Gore.
"We have no choice but to actively explore alternatives to the two
major political parties," said Yokich. "It's time to forget about
party labels and instead focus on supporting candidates, such as
Ralph Nader, who will take a stand based on what is right, not what
big money dictates."
Yokich is probably under enormous pressure from the AFL-CIO to pipe
down. But we hope he won't.
If labor leaders, if progressives, don't make a credible threat to
abandon Democrats when the Democrats abandon us, then there is
nothing that will stop centrist Democrats like Clinton and Gore
from drifting farther to the right.
At some point, the strategy of staying within the Democratic Party,
no matter what, becomes self-defeating.
Is this the year to break loose?
Many progressives caution against ditching Gore. They say he is
better than George W. Bush. Well, yes and no.
Gore is equivalent to Bush on a whole range of foreign policy
issues, including sanctions on Iraq, aid to the brutal Colombian
military, a $300 billion Pentagon budget, and first-use of nuclear
weapons. He's only marginally better on missile defense. He's not
one iota better on NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and
trade with China.
Gore is not better than Bush on the death penalty, the war on crime,
the destruction of welfare, and domestic economic policy (such as
the compulsion to balance the budget or draw down the debt). And
Gore can make only the most laughable case for campaign finance
reform, given his own indiscretions.
Nor is Gore better than Bush on fundamental issues of corporate
power or the maldistribution of wealth and income in this country.
Gore doesn't go near these.
But, yes, Gore is definitely better on abortion rights. While early
in his career he favored restricting abortion rights, Gore for the
last eight years has steadfastly supported a woman's right to
choose. Like Clinton, he should be counted on to defend this right
against the conservative onslaught. If abortion rights is your
number one concern, voting for Al Gore is certainly a sensible
inclination.
And yes, Gore is definitely better on gay rights, though he does
not favor gay marriage. Unlike Bush, he actually seems at ease with
lesbians and gays. And he appears to understand that the gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender movement is part of the greater
civil rights and liberation movement that has been sweeping the
country over the last four decades. If gay rights is your number
one concern, voting for Al Gore is certainly a sensible inclination.
Yes, Gore has a better record on civil rights, too. You won't see
him visit Bob Jones University or trash affirmative action.
Yes, Gore would be more likely to appoint decent justices to the
Supreme Court. But there's no guarantee. Nor is it a certainty that
the Bush appointees would be abominable. Two of the most liberal
justices on the court, John Paul Stevens and David Souter, were
appointed by Republicans. And Clinton's appointees have not been
in the Douglas, Brennan, or Marshall league. There is no reason to
suspect that Gore would appoint more liberal justices than Clinton
has.
But that's not the question at hand. The question is, given Bush's
reverence for Antonin Scalia, would Bush's appointments to the
Supreme Court be a huge setback for the progressive cause? The
answer depends on how many justices he would get to appoint, and
how reactionary they would turn out to be.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist is tops on the list of justices
likely to retire. If Bush wins and gets to replace Rehnquist, the
balance on the court wouldn't change at all, since Rehnquist is a
conservative anyway. But if Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire,
then the balance could shift dangerously to the right.
So, all things considered, the Court is a legitimate cause for
concern. But since the outcome is iffy, it should not be granted
the trump card status that it has attained in some circles.
On the environment, despite Gore's reputation, his record leaves
a lot to be desired, as Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
pointed out in our February issue. Gore told the EPA to slow down
the implementation of tough pesticide regulations, and he reneged
on his promise to shut the hazardous waste incinerator in East
Liverpool, Ohio. "A little-reported example is Gore's fervent
efforts on behalf of Monsanto, the St. Louis-based chemical giant,"
St. Clair wrote in the April 17 issue of In These Times. "The Vice
President made a series of forceful calls to European heads of
state, including the leaders of Ireland and France, stressing his
opposition to a move by the European Union to ban the import of
genetically engineered seeds and food products." David Brower, one
of the leading environmentalists in the country, says that Bush
and Gore "are really the same color."
On labor, despite NAFTA, the WTO, and the China deal, Gore is still
better than Bush. He supports increases in the minimum wage, he
supports family leave, and he is more likely to appoint pro-union
people to the National Labor Relations Board. Even the UAW's Yokich
acknowledged Gore's superiority here. "We cannot turn to Republican
candidate George W. Bush," he said. "His positions on issues of
concern to working families are far worse."
But Yokich understands that even though Gore is better than Bush
on some vital issues, that is not sufficient.
Gore is not a reliable ally. And a vote for Gore may not be the
best way to advance the progressive cause.
If you take the long view, a Nader candidacy on the Green Party
line has some distinct advantages.
First, it will hold the Democratic Party accountable.
Thirty years ago, the Princeton philosopher Albert O. Hirschman
wrote a slender but profound book entitled Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.
He said that if you want to influence change within an organization,
you have three options: You can protest (voice); you can remain
loyal; or you can bolt.
Progressives need a credible exit threat, otherwise we will continue
to be taken for granted. Since Clinton's first Presidential run,
Democratic strategists have been assuming that we have nowhere else
to go, so they have counseled a sell-out strategy: on welfare, on
capital punishment, on the Pentagon.
But this year, we have somewhere to go. And some of us will walk
over to Nader. Those who do so should not be faulted. Their exit
will serve as an important reminder to Democrats in the future: If
you stray, you pay.
Second, the Nader campaign is articulating progressive, anti-corporate
views to millions of Americans at a time when they are most prepared
to listen: during a Presidential campaign. Nader lets people know
that the debate in this country does not start from the Democratic
Leadership Council pole and move ever rightward. He is talking
about some fundamental issues, such as universal health care,
campaign finance reform, curbing corporate power, and reinvigorating
democracy. He has the capacity to inspire millions of people who
have given up hope of redeeming the promise of America. (We wish
only that he would talk more boldly about a more humane U.S. foreign
policy, and more comfortably about abortion rights, race, and
sexuality.)
Third, Nader is trying to build the Green Party into a durable
feature of our political landscape. This is not some solo ego trip.
He understands that you have to start small. His whole career has
been about establishing organizations. Unlike Jesse Jackson, who
used the Rainbow Coalition as a trampoline for his own ambitions,
Nader is putting himself in the service of the Green Party, which
may become a force to be reckoned with here in the United States
as it has in Europe.
This country needs a more explicitly ideological debate. Let's have
it out. For too long, the Democrats have been narrowing the space
between themselves and the Republicans. Dodging the liberal label
and discarding progressive planks, they have blurred the distinctions
between the two parties and shut off debate on crucial issues. A
viable Green Party would open up that debate.
This magazine has a soft spot for third party candidates. It
sympathized with Eugene Victor Debs, who won almost one million
votes in 1920 on the Socialist Party ticket, though Debs was in
jail at the time for protesting World War I. Our founder, Wisconsin
Senator Robert La Follette, ran as the Progressive Party candidate
in 1924 and garnered five million votes. In 1948, The Progressive
endorsed Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate for President.
By running on principle, these third party candidates helped keep
in circulation the currency of progressive politics.
We recognize that the progressive community is split this year on
the election issue. But no matter where you come out on the Nader
challenge, some perspective is in order.
This is not the most important election in U.S. history, not even
close. We've had elections over slavery, depressions, world wars,
the Cold War, Vietnam. This year, the issues are of a lower
temperature. The contest is between a corporate Republican and a
corporate Democrat. Whoever wins, the United States will still
spend more on defense than the next twelve militaries combined.
Whoever wins, there will still be forty-four million Americans
without health insurance. Whoever wins, the wealthiest 1 percent
of Americans will still own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. And
whoever wins, big business will still laugh all the way to the
bank.
But that is not to counsel despair. It is, only, to recognize the
limits of the plebiscite for President.
We need to remember how social change happens. It doesn't happen
by electing a Bill Clinton or an Al Gore. It happens by pointing
out injustice and by organizing millions of people at the grassroots
to overcome it. To the extent that the Nader campaign helps serve
those functions it will be a success.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
