December 2002
Posted December 1, 2002
How low will they go: Conservative identity politics? September 18, 2002 -
According to the National Taxpayers Union, union violence is a pervasive and serious problem:
"All too often, hard-working Americans are the victims of union violence during labor disputes. Over the years individuals who've chosen to work during a strike have been harassed, physically threatened, beaten, stabbed, and even shot."
Historically, there can be no doubt this is true. But just how big is this problem? In answer, they provide a disturbing report, A Heartland Report on Union Violence (pdf) which cites some pretty scary numbers to make their case against unions:
"Some 9,000 attacks against workers by their colleagues have been documented in recent decades." - National Center for Policy Analysis
What do they mean by "recent decades"? They don't say. But the National Institute for Labor Relations Research does:
"The National Institute for Labor Relations Research has reported that since 1975 there have been 8,799 incidents of labor union violence that have gone to court - there were only 258 convictions." - Steve Martin, Enter Stage Right, Unions: paragons of virtue, January 24, 2000
So, roughly 9,000 reported incidents in 25 years, of which 258 led to convictions. That's a little more than 10 convictable offenses per year, unless the predominantly conservative anti-unionists wish to employ the same math feminist ideologues use when proving that 25%-33% of American women are raped or sexually assaulted.
Feminists contend that every allegation of rape or sexual assault must be accepted as a matter of indisputable fact, no matter how weak the case. And they insist that the fact so few accusations of rape lead to a conviction proves not that a lot of false accusations are filed, but that American courts are corrupt.
But as several commentators, including Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young and me, have amply demonstrated, feminist math is the arithmetic of bigotry. Just as it is when anti-unionists contend lack of enforcement is the reason for so few convictions.
While the statistics do serve to demonstrate this is not a trivial issue, it is ironic that conservatives would reject the decisions of the courts and employ feminist-like math. Moreover, they're no better than those unionists who generalize about employers and management.
Glib generalizations may be standard issue in the armies of opposing ideologies, but for the majority of us, who are caught in the middle, oversimplification only makes things worse. Union violence is not pervasive, nor are all cases necessarily the same: It's important to understand the causes, conditions and circumstances of each, even if only to prevent future violence.
Anti-unionists may want to oversimplify the issue of union violence, but they're quick to note that the issue of corporate corruption is complex. And they're right: it's comprised of a multitude of small capitulations by rank-and-file supervisors and managers with no job security, and a few "screw you" policies imposed by some top executives. Policies which, arguably, have harmed far more people - numbering in the hundreds of thousands, if not more - than union violence has, whether the number is 9,000 or only 258.
Squabbling over actual numbers aside, the issue of union violence is anything but simple, and should be analyzed carefully. Nor should any real act of union violence lead to the blanket condemnation of any or all unions. After all, blaming a group for the criminal deeds of a few members is the very essence of identity politics, and what good conservative would stoop to that?
- National Taxpayers Union
September 2002
Posted September 2, 2002
Collapse of Corporate Feudalism? - We've been screwed, blued and tattooed by union busting corporations. Now, in a faltering economy, the bulls and bears are caught in a conundrum, uncertain whether to stampede or head for the hills. Is this the collapse of corporate feudalism? Don't count on it. - more...
Posted September 2, 2002
Paul Greenberg - Corporate Cuba? February 20, 2002 -
American corporations love free trade. Not only does it open markets, but increases the supply of labor, lowers production costs, and increases their stock price.
"Cuba's ruling elite would like to revive the island's trade with this country because, you can be sure, they'll get their share of the profits. The crumbs they'll throw to the masses might allay popular discontent a while longer."
Not to mention that it will supply American corporations with a new source of cheap labor.
- Washington Times
January 2002
Posted January 25, 2002
Daniel J. Mitchell - Obscuring the Wage issue with a Tax-Cut Debate: March 7, 2001 -
Opponents of George W. Bush's tax cut package say it's a giveaway to rich people and does too little for poor people. But does taxation unfairly penalize the rich, as the package's proponents contend? If so, then shouldn't they get the largest part of any tax cut?
"According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one-third of the total income tax burden. The top 10 percent pay more than two-thirds. And the bottom 50 percent of income earners? They pay barely 4 percent of income taxes."
Looks pretty lop-sided already. Instead of grumbling about how unfair Bush's tax cut package would be, maybe we should give it our whole-hearted support. Before we do, however, maybe we should stop to ask just who these rich people are?
How much do you have to make to be one of the "top 10 percent" who pay "more than two-thirds" of income taxes?
First, however, we should be clear about who they are not. Or, at least, who among the "rich" does not pay a lot of income tax: corporations. According to Table No. 472 of the 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States, corporations paid only 11.4% of the total income tax in 1999. And in 2001, according to Table No. 459, that figure dropped to less than 10 percent.
Regarding the "rich,"
the IRS reports that you were one of the top 10% in 1997 if you made at
least $79,639. ("Further Examination of the Distribution of Individual
Income and Taxes Using a Consistent and Comprehensive Measure of Income,"
Petska, Strudler & Petska, March 2000) So, if you made more than $80
grand in 1997, you were among the "rich" who paid more than two-thirds
of the income taxes.
Eighty thousand dollars is a lot of money. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average annual pay in metropolitan areas was $36,986 in 2000. Compared to the average, $80,000 is a lot, but they pay a lot more in taxes, too, so they should get a larger tax cut than the rest of us. Seems only fair. And it is fair.
Just one more thing before we line up to support the tax cut package: why only $80,000? Why is the cost of entry to be considered "rich" for tax purposes so low? No, I'm not suggesting the IRS should raise the bar. The question is, why are so few people making that kind of money? After all, if more of us made $80,000/year, the income tax burden could be distributed more fairly.
Sure, and why can't we all drive expensive cars and live in lavish homes? Get real!
Good point! But consider this: "If the average pay for production workers had risen at the same level as CEO pay since 1990, the annual salary would be $120,491." (Boston Globe, August 31, 2001)
A fair distribution of taxes is an important issue, but if taxes unfairly target "high" income earners, in large part it's because the corporations are outsourcing jobs to low-paying temp agencies and subcontractors, exporting jobs overseas, pressuring unions to lower real wages, and in short doing everything they can to hoard more cash at the expense of the rank and file wage earners who could otherwise afford to shoulder a larger share of the tax burden themselves.
Then, the debate wouldn't be over who gets how much of a tax break, but on other important issues, like the myriad of fundamental flaws in our tax system.
- Heritage Foundation
|
