Labor Day Present for the American People...

[Edi]

Well, this is certainly interesting. President Bush, the great friend of the average, hardworking American...NOT. His foreign policy might have made him few friends overseas and he might not be the brightest bulb in the box where intelligence is concerned, but if there's anything that earns my utter contempt in a flash, it's this kind of stabbing your own people in the back and then twisting the knife. If my government pulled something like this on me, I'd be howling for their blood.

Edi

Source

THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY
by Greg Palast
Friday, August 29, 2003
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version


In celebration of the working person's holiday, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration's plan to end the 60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for overtime.

I'm sure you already knew that -- if you happened to have run across page 15,576 of the Federal Register.

According to the Register, where the Bush Administration likes to place its little gifts to major campaign donors, 2.7 million workers will lose their overtime pay for a "benefit" of $1.53 billion. I put "benefit" in quotes because, in the official cost-benefit analysis issued by Bush's Labor Department, the amount employers will now be able to slice out of workers' pockets is tallied on the plus side of the rules change.

Nevertheless, workers getting their pay snipped shouldn't complain, because they will all be receiving promotions. These employees will be re-classified as managers exempt from the law. The change is promoted by the National Council of Chain Restaurants. You've met these 'managers' - they're the ones in the beanies and aprons whose management decisions are, "Hold the lettuce on that."

My favorite of Chao's little amendments would re-classify as "exempt professionals" anyone who learned their skill in the military. In other words, thousands of veterans will now lose overtime pay. I just can't understand why Bush didn't announce that one when he landed on the aircraft carrier.

CHOICE NUMBER FOUR: BREAK THE LAW

Now I should say that, according to Chao's press office, the changes will actually extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million burger flippin' managers. How does that square with the billion dollar "benefit" to business owners? Simple: The Chao hounds at the Labor Department suggest that employers CUT WAGES so that, added to the new "overtime" pay, the employees won't actually take home a dime more.

I can hear the moaners and bleeding hearts saying this sounds like the Labor Department is telling Big Business how to evade the law. Yep, that's what the Department is doing. Right there on page 15,576 of the Federal Register it says,

"Affected employers would have four choices concerning potential payroll costs: … (4) converting salaried employees' basis of pay to an hourly rate that result in virtually no changes to the total compensation paid those workers."

And in case some employer is dense as a president and doesn't get the hint, Comrade Chao repeats, "…The fourth choice above results in virtually no (or only a minimal) increase in labor costs."

For decades the courts have thrown the book at cheapskate bosses who chisel workers out of legal overtime by cutting base pay this way… but now they'll have a new defense: Bush made me do it.

But then, there likely will not be any cases against employers anyway since Chao herself is supposedly the labor cop whose job it is to stop paycheck theft. She's well qualified for that job. Her resume reads, "Married to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky." I called her press office to ask if she qualifies for overtime, but they'd left the office early.

And there is good news for our sporting President. Word from the White House is he'll be golfing on the Labor Day weekend. Under Chao's rules he need not worry if he wants to replay that hole. "Exempt professionals" who cannot earn overtime - once defined as doctors, lawyers and those with specialized college degrees - will now include anyone who provides skilled advice… like caddies ("You might try the other end of the club, Mr. President").


THE ACORN FALLS ONLY SO FAR

Finally, on this Labor Day weekend, it's time this nation took a cold look at the issue of hard-core unemployment. Neo-conservatives have warned us about families that pass on joblessness from generation to generation.

Take, for example, the sad case of the Bush family. When Poppy Bush was president unemployment hit a generational high of over 9 million Americans. Bill Clinton, through education and hard work, put more than 3 million of those citizens back on the job.

Now Bush Junior, repeating his family pattern of encouraging joblessness, has presided over the return of unemployment for 9 million Americans.

This was not unexpected, sociologists warn us. Hard core unemployment, through failed schooling and a don't-care attitude, takes on a nearly genetic character. The acorn falls only so far from the tree. Especially when the nut falls on its head.

[Darth Wong]

Not surprising. Bush is a spoiled rich boy who believes it's very important to pay back the people who got him into power (this idea sounds much more noble when you call it "loyalty").

Most of his domestic policy actions have been geared toward payback for his cronies ever since he came to power, and this is no exception.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I need to try an confirm this, but I heard on of the new rules concerning OT is that if you learned your skills while in the military you can be made exempt from OT. Im sure the current Administration will make sure they dont ever bring that rule up at the next speech given at a military base.

[Xenophobe3691]

Wow, this is a whole load of fucking bullshit. He pulls this off, he can kiss a huge portion of his voter-base goodbye...

[Darth Wong]

I need to try an confirm this, but I heard on of the new rules concerning OT is that if you learned your skills while in the military you can be made exempt from OT. Im sure the current Administration will make sure they dont ever bring that rule up at the next speech given at a military base.

But why would George expect that to be a problem? After all, he can just suggest that they all do what he did: go AWOL from the military and live off Daddy's vast fortune.

Bush reminds me of Marie Antoinette and her "let them eat cake" line. This is not a man who can directly relate to an average middle-class person. Personally, I think politics should be limited to people who can honestly say that at some point in their adult lives, they had to borrow money (from someone other than Daddy) just to cover the necessities (rent, gas, food, etc).

[TrailerParkJawa]

Bush reminds me of Marie Antoinette and her "let them eat cake" line. This is not a man who can directly relate to an average middle-class person.

That much is true. I think most people who grew up very rich have a hard time really relating. They just have never been in the shoes of the middle class.

[Johonebesus]

Wow, this is a whole load of fucking bullshit. He pulls this off, he can kiss a huge portion of his voter-base goodbye...

Sadly, the average American is too apathetic and lazy to care or bother voting. Most of those that do are too partisan to ever vote against their party. Americans do not vote by their economic interests, but by emotional appeals.

Besides, people just do not pay attention to class. The hated elites are the educated "intellectuals," never mind that an awful lot of them come from very humble backgrounds. One of my professors in college worked in construction to pay for his schooling, another worked in a mental asylum, another was a plumber, a couple came from farms. None-the-less, they had Ph.D.'s and often used "big" words without even noticing, so of course they couldn't identify with common folks. As long as a rich man dresses and speaks and acts like a common joe, he is loved. Sadly, most Americans are much more concerned about perceived threats to traditional values than about real threats to livelihood.

[Xenophobe3691]

Sadly, the average American is too apathetic and lazy to care or bother voting.

Yep, that's honestly the most disgusting part about the current system of voting (well, to me, at least.) I personally couldn't wait to register to vote, and I still can't wait for my first chance to influence the political process. Yet my other two apartmentmates haven't even registered to vote.

As long as a rich man dresses and speaks and acts like a common joe, he is loved.

Hmmm, maybe I should sig that...

[Darth Wong]

It's true; there is no greater crime in a populist culture than to be intellectual. The irony is that the Founding Fathers of the nation would be considered loony left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectuals if they lived today, and would be mercilessly lambasted by the so-called "populists". Even today, the ACLU (which fights for nothing more than the preservation of constitutional rights) is basically regarded as a "left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectual" organization.

[Stravo]

Excuse me but if I read this artcle correctly OT is NOT being abolished for the vast majority of American workers. A small minorioty of people working in Restaurant chains (McDonalds?) will be promoted to managerial positions which have always been exempt from OT (AT least in the legal profession and other companies that we've represenented) So, my question is they are trading off the right to OT by making these people managers which usually translates into better benefits and the like. What is the huge hue and outcry about?

[MKSheppard]

Even today, the ACLU (which fights for nothing more than the preservation of constitutional rights) is basically regarded as a "left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectual" organization.

Thats because they fight for very specific stuff. When's the last time they
took a case on the second amendment...oh that's right. They haven't.

[SirNitram]

Even today, the ACLU (which fights for nothing more than the preservation of constitutional rights) is basically regarded as a "left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectual" organization.

Thats because they fight for very specific stuff. When's the last time they
took a case on the second amendment...oh that's right. They haven't.

To my knowledge, the second amendment's not been violated in spirit, and you have to do legalese wordplay to make it violated in letter. So why would they defend it? Oh, I forgot, because the NRA says they should.

[Stravo]

The ACLU has an agenda in many of its cases, a very liberal agenda, and tends to pick and choose the cases it takes on. For instance the ACLU has never tackled the thorny issue of whether prosecuting a police officer for the same crime under Civil Rights law is tantamount to double jeopardy (Being on trial for the same crime over again) The Government always brushes by this saying its federal law not state law, but they are using the SAME facts, SAME crime that all sounds suspiciously to me like double jeopardy.

But these are police officers who have been accused of killing or brutralizing a minority. Never mind the fact that he was acquitted of the state charges and that the current predilection for bringing Civil Rights charges against the PO's was a naked attempt by the Federal government to get a second bite at the apple and as such nullify the findings of a state jury. Since it doesn't fit in their neat little world view they turn a blind eye to this. Woe to anyone were it black defendants being charged with Federal crimes after beating a state rap.

[Joe]

Excuse me but if I read this artcle correctly OT is NOT being abolished for the vast majority of American workers. A small minorioty of people working in Restaurant chains (McDonalds?) will be promoted to managerial positions which have always been exempt from OT (AT least in the legal profession and other companies that we've represenented) So, my question is they are trading off the right to OT by making these people managers which usually translates into better benefits and the like. What is the huge hue and outcry about?

Because this is something the Bush administration is doing, and the Bush administration is always out to appease its big business pals.

Actually, the people who will be hurt the most by this act are, you guessed it, upper income people (ref.).There's also the fact that 120 million people in this country are currently eligible for overtime, the vast majority of whom will be absolutely unaffected by this act. This is a moderate restructuring of overtime law, not the outright abolition that the idiot who penned this worthless tripe quite clearly suggests in his opening.

[Joe]

It's true; there is no greater crime in a populist culture than to be intellectual. The irony is that the Founding Fathers of the nation would be considered loony left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectuals if they lived today, and would be mercilessly lambasted by the so-called "populists". Even today, the ACLU (which fights for nothing more than the preservation of constitutional rights) is basically regarded as a "left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectual" organization.

No, the Founding Fathers were federalists who envisioned a far smaller role for the federal government than the one it currently plays. They would more likely be dismissed as anti-government zealots.

[Perinquus]

It's true; there is no greater crime in a populist culture than to be intellectual. The irony is that the Founding Fathers of the nation would be considered loony left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectuals if they lived today, and would be mercilessly lambasted by the so-called "populists". Even today, the ACLU (which fights for nothing more than the preservation of constitutional rights) is basically regarded as a "left-wing liberal ivory-tower intellectual" organization.

Not quite. Many of their ideas are positively anathema to modern liberals. For example, the founding fathers, almost to a man were in favor of restricting the voting franchise. They limited it to people who owned land, were engaged in a journeyman trade, or could otherwise demonstrate that they had some sort of stake in the community. They were almost all in favor of limited government (they almost all endorsed Thos. Paine's sentiment when he said: "That government is best which governs least"), which also puts them in stark contrast to modern liberals, who seem to look instinctively to government to solve most problems. They believed in the citizens' right to be armed and to defend themselves, whereas the majority of liberals today are pro-gun control. Ben Franklin actually spoke out against a welfare law, which no liberal today would do. I feel certain the founding fathers would not have approved of judicial activism, though most liberals do today.

Words like the following:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

or these:

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787

or especially these:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

are words I cannot imagine coming from the lips of any liberal today.

And in another respect, the founding fathers could never have been considered ivory tower intellectuals. They practical were men of the world. Washington and Jefferson were farmers who ran their estates at a profit. Franklin was an inventor and successful printer. Alexander Hamilton was a successful merchant banker. John Adams had a very successful legal practice. These were not ivory tower intellectuals, who lived their lives out of touch with the real world; they were men who accomplished things and to whom practical results mattered. They were idealists, yes, but unlike ivory tower intellectuals, they were not only idealists. Their idealism was tempered by pragmatism, which was gained by practical experience that true ivory tower types never seem to get. I suspect most of them would be politically conservative or moderate by today's standards

Now the leaders of the French Revolution, are men I believe were ivory tower intellectuals. And their way of doing things led to the Terror, and then the breakdown of their republic and the rise of a tyrant.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I was talking about the literate way that they expressed themselves. Today, it is actually a political benefit to sound like you're not that well educated. It's all style, not substance.

[Joe]

Actually, I was talking about the literate way that they expressed themselves. Today, it is actually a political benefit to sound like you're not that well educated. It's all style, not substance.

Oh, I see. So would Abraham Lincoln, by that definition. Not to mention Frederick Douglas.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, I see. So would Abraham Lincoln, by that definition. Not to mention Frederick Douglas.

It's really quite sad to look at political speeches from a century ago and compare them to the drooling soundbites and empty sloganeering that passes for political speech today.

[Joe]

Oh, I see. So would Abraham Lincoln, by that definition. Not to mention Frederick Douglas.

It's really quite sad to look at political speeches from a century ago and compare them to the drooling soundbites and empty sloganeering that passes for political speech today.

Presidential debates are even worse. They're an absolute joke.

[Nova Andromeda]

--The British seem to be able to talk fairly eloquently still....

[Joe]

--The British seem to be able to talk fairly eloquently still....

Because they're not afraid too be witty and sound intellectual. Parliament (or "Congress with a two-drink minimum") is infinitely more entertaining than the mindless droll of Congress.

[Xenophobe3691]

Oh, I see. So would Abraham Lincoln, by that definition. Not to mention Frederick Douglas.

It's really quite sad to look at political speeches from a century ago and compare them to the drooling soundbites and empty sloganeering that passes for political speech today.

Well, back then most guys didn't vote, and the people you were speaking to were the rich dudes who did vote. Nowadays, you have to pander to everyone.

[Axis Kast]

Do recall that the intellectual elite before 1900 tended toward supremely uniform, universally Classical education. Great orators such as Abraham Lincoln would have grown up in circles speaking or finding utility in similar kinds of language expressed in the Gettysburg Address or Emancipation Proclamation. Even in 1941, Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor speech fell back on the kind of stiff, formal grammar of virtually fifty years earlier. It wasn't until a larger cross-section of Americans began pursuing university education after the Second World War that standards dropped uniformly and the cirriculum was expanded - and in some cases watered-down - to deal with the influx of new students.

[Stormbringer]

It's really quite sad to look at political speeches
from a century ago and compare them to the drooling soundbites and empty sloganeering that passes for political speech today.

This is one thing we really can blame on TV. Politicions spoke like that because people would pay attention for that long and the news would show it. As soundbites became more common people stopped paying attention, even condemning those that did.


If people want oration stop bashing those that attempt it.