Anti-Union Companies Archive
In the wake of airline busting of unions, wages and benefits have been cut for airline employees.
And the New York Times has a profile of a profession in depression:
One veteran United Airlines captain, who laments that when he retires in a few years his pension will be about one-fourth what he expected, said he had to shut it out of his mind to prevent the distraction from affecting his work...How lovely. You've got a lot of depressed pilots who are afraid to seek counseling for fear of being blacklisted.Dr. Fischbeck, who flew in the Navy and has colleagues who went on to fly for the airlines, said that the change in financial circumstances and job security were good reasons to be unhappy.
But Dr. Fischbeck and others pointed out that the industry culture is such that pilots must face the hardship on their own. Other workers with health plans might seek professional counseling. With pilots licensed by the F.A.A., however, "as soon as you sign up for it, it's on your record, and you're toast."
A US Airways pilot echoed that sentiment: "If it gets reported to the F.A.A., you can forget it, you're not coming back to work, until you go through a lot. The system requires us to deal with it ourselves. That makes it very difficult to go through what we just went through."
After Massachusetts last month ordered Wal-Mart to stock the "Plan B" emergency contraception pill, Wal-Mart this past Friday announced that, effective March 20, all Wal-Mart pharmacies nationwide will carry emergency contraception, reversing the companies previous policy-- part of a trend of Wal-Mart changing its national policies in response to state laws.
Illinois also requires pharmacies to stock the prescription drug and the emerging trend in state laws made Wal-Mart change its policy:
"We expect more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead," said Ron Chomiuk, vice president of pharmacy for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart. "Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it."Adding to the pressure was an announcement last Thursday by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that the insurance plan for 188,000 state employees and retirees should no longer cover prescriptions at Wal-Mart unless the retail giant agrees to stock emergency contraception pills.
This victory reflects the power that states wield to change the policies of even the largest company in the country. This is also reflected in Wal-Mart's scrambling in recent weeks to upgrade health benefits for its employees as states move increasingly to require large companies to provide health benefits.
And in many cases, workers denied overtime or minimum wages by Wal-Mart have used more favorable state labor laws to bring lawsuits against the company-- putting pressure on the firm to improve conditions.
The lesson from the various Wal-Mart campaigns is clear-- progressives don't have to wait for action on Capitol Hill to fight for and win national victories.
Crossposted from PLAN.
According to a new Zogby poll, people are not buying the idea that Wal-Mart is good for the American economy:
The poll found that 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement - "Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost." In contrast, only 39 percent of American adults agreed with the opposing statement - "I believe Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every day."40% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of the company, nearly double its unfavorable image at the beginning of 2005.
Even more to the point, the number of regular shoppers at Wal-Mart has fallen significantly. A the beginning of 2005, 69% of the population shopped at the company at least once or twice a month. That dropped to 51% by November.
Here's the shocking finding-- progressives have been able to create a significant shift in public opinion and shopping habits, a testament to the strong coalitions built in the last year.
Here's to an even more successful 2006!
One measure of what an economic criminal Wal-Mart has become is how routine it is when 200,000 Missouri workers are certified for a class action against the company for illegally failing to pay them for rest breaks and forcing those employees to work off-the-clock.
While there is a long trial ahead, just getting class action status required extensive testimony by the employees, where the judge stated that the plaintiffs (from BNA Daily Labor Report, no link):
have demonstrated by compelling testimony that a Sam's Club payroll manager was trained and instructed to systematically and routinely deduct rest breaks and meal breaks from employees' daily time records, with or without verification by the employee or supervisor; [and] that unauthorized overtime pay was removed or edited from time records.This is theft, nothing less, and yet some people offer Wal-Mart even a nod of acceptance for their consistent abuse of the law and their workers. Tasini has rightly been railing on Democratic operatives for taking money to spruce up Wal-Mart's image, and for Democratic Congressmen who voted to support the DOL-Wal-Mart dirty deal on child labor.
At this point, political collaboration with the Beast of Bentonville is no longer acceptable-- I'm withTasini. Democratic consultants working for Wal-Mart should have EVERY contract cut off from Democratic committees, and every Congressman voting with Wal-Mart should be facing primary challenges next year, especially those in safe Democratic districts like Ed Towns and Henry Cuellar -- who also went renegade on the CAFTA vote.
Responding to the nasty Wal-Mart memo, where the company laid down a strategy of discriminating against the unhealthy and disabled to keep down health care costs, both Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein in a sense defended Wal-Mart, since the irrationality of employer-based health care means that all companies want to avoid high-cost employees and dump their costs on other employers or the public. Says Ezra:
In a world where [companies] have to pay for health care, it makes perfect sense. So don't get angry at Wal-Mart; they're doing exactly what the market demands. Get angry at lawmakers.This statement by Ezra is why wonkish liberals are getting their asses handed to them by conservatives.
Yes, there is a good argument for national health care insurance to diminish the incenctive for such discrimination against the sick and disabled, but it's ridiculous to let Wal-Mart off the hook. Lots of laws aren't in the economic self-interest of companies -- from minimum wage laws to family leave policies -- but companies that ignore them deserve to be slammed hard.
Employers shouldn't be excused for completely rotten, immoral activities just because a better policy would make compliance with the law easier. This is bleeding heart liberalism applied to the largest corporation on earth, as if Ezra is excusing some kid caught purse snatching with the excuse that society had failed to provide better economic alternatives to a life of crime, so it's really society's fault that the victims lost their property.
Bashing the government for Wal-Mart's actions is just bad politics. Talking about the incompetence of government in designing our health care system as an argument for entrusting government with MORE responsibility for managing that system is probably the most self-defeating approach possible. But the more large corporations like Wal-Mart are attacked by the public for their health care policies, the more those companies will have an incentive to push for national health care to relieve the pressure on them. But bash government, and those companies are happy to see attention diverted from them.
More fundamentally, such an approach assumes that better government bureaucrats are all that are needed to get a better policy, but the reality is that better health care in other countries is dependent on both better policies and stronger worker power to hold their companies accountable. Yes, some of the irrational incentives in the system can be eliminated, but unless the employer role is completely eliminated -- which hasn't happened except in a few countries -- then holding companies accoutable will always be critical.
If you want national health care, then building union strength is critical, both to create more of the political critical mass to pass the legislation but also to make sure it's implemented fairly. And a critical step to strengthening union power is keeping the public pressure on Wal-Mart for its bad actions, so the company can be forced to recognize the right of its employees to unionize in coming years.
So don't let Wal-Mart off the hook. For the sake of national health insurance.
Update: Ezra has a response here and I have a response in comments on that thread.
To discourage unhealthy job applicants, [the memo] suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."...Wal-Mart has hopefully bought itself a nice Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit."It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier work force than it will be to change behavior in an existing one," the memo said. "These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."
Or better, the publicity will force them to avoid any of the nasty proposals outlined in the memo, since any lawyer now has documented intent to discriminate in hand if they do.
Here is a report that a company doing fundraising for the Democratic Party and other progressive organizations has been engaged in union busting.
A good place to start is to contact the Democratic National Committee and demand an investigation.
Better yet, tell them to do business only with companies that are already unionized or agree upfront to recognize any union when a majority of workers request it-- exactly the principles embodied in the Democratic-endorsed Employee Free Choice Act. None of these progressive organizations need to wait for the GOP to agree to this legislation to implement its principles in-house.
A lot of commentators want to spin the economic problems in the auto industry as the fault of the union pay and health care contracts.
But nothing shows that the blame belongs with the executives than the announcement that the giant Delphi auto supply company (formerly part of GM) is declaring bankruptcy, yet the executives just had their golden parachutes increased:
[I]n a report to the federal agency that supervises publicly traded companies, Delphi said the top executives are now eligible for up to 18 months of pay and some of their regular bonus.It boggles the mind that anyone can blame workers for trying to make a decent, not a lavish, but a decent living for their families, when top executives piss away millions to pad their own pockets on a scale that most people only dream about.The old separation policy "wasn't competitive" for the top executives, said company spokesperson Claudia Baucus. Delphi's top five executives, not including Miller, were paid between $800,000 and $1 million last year, she said.
The likely upshot of the Delphi bankruptcy is to keep those executive salaries flying high, while workers will see their pay, pensions and health benefits slashed.:
The company wants to cut wages to less than half of current levels and eliminate a "jobs bank" that gives full pay to 4,000 laid-off workers...Delphi's retirees face similar cuts if the company follows the lead of steel companies and airlines that have successfully used the bankruptcy courts to offload their pension obligations to the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, an agency set up in 1974 that is funded by contributions from premiums paid by companies. Once the agency takes over a pension plan, workers receive only part of their benefits.It's not that those executive salares directly threw the company into bankruptcy, but they reflect a general mismanagement that has been chronic in the industry for decades. They missed fuel efficient cars and ceded the market to Japan. Having locked themselves into gas guzzlers, they're suddenly caught flat-footed as gas prices soar. They're paying off executives to the tune of millions a year each for dumb, dumb decisions.
Oh yeah, and if they would support single-payer government insurance, their legacy costs for health care would disappear. But again, ideological decisions in the boardroom make them prefer to head towards bankruptcy than support a policy that would help them and help all American workers.
Reprinted From Confined Space
So it turns out that the nomination of Edwin Foulke as Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA last week is looking more and more like a typical Bush administration move: Appoint a Republican political operative to head an agency that he's spent most of his career working to undermine. Except in this case, there's an extra twist. Foulke is not just a Republican mover and shaker in South Carolina, he's also a partner at Jackson-Lewis, one of the most notorious union-busting lawfirms in the country. How appropriate for a Bush Administration Assistant Secretary of Labor.
I realized that when I wrote the original post that Jackson Lewis resided on the dark side, but I didn't have time to do much research that evening. Little did I know how easy the research would be. Just Google "Jackson Lewis" + "union busting" and you come up with 322 hits. Substitute "union busting" with the more polite phrase "union avoidance" and you get 304 hits. MORE...
Flagstaff, Arizona has a ballot initiative to restrict the entry of "big box" retailers into the city, with provisions that especially target Wal-Mart's ability to sell groceries in its supercenters.
However you feel about Wal-Mart, most people might think this is a basic issue of land use choices, some thinking them foolish, other vitally necessary, but only corporate propagandists like Wal-Mart would compare it to a Nazi book burning:
The newspaper ads contend that Proposition 100's restrictions on big-box retailers are an infringement of constitutional freedoms. The message has been conveyed through a blurred photo of a Nazi book-burning taken from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum archives and a close-up of a person's mouth covered with tape.This is more than an abusive media attack ad; it's part and parcel of the rightwing corporate attempt to rollback constitutional law to the early 20th century when basic labor protections were struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.
So what were the corporate "constitutional rights" protected back then? How about child labor (to match image for image):
When corporations talk about "constitutional rights", remember that property rights to slavery and child labor are their precedents.
Balloon Juice, a conservative, writes about the taxpayer ripoff involved in the United Airlines pension bailout, and emphasized the likely domino effect as other airlines are forced to slash their pensions in response:
The other major airlines will be charged higher premiums to make up for the slack created by the PBGC assuming United's debt, and they in turn will then be 'forced' to apply for protection and will walk away from their pension plans, shouldering the PBGC with even more payments and debt.He doesn't discuss the Bush administration's encouragement of these bankruptcies as part of its union-busting campaign against the airline unions, but it does reflect that even conservatives can admit the hypocrisies involved in "free market" ideology, when private shareholders keep the profits in flush times and taxpayers get stuck with the bills when they fail.
"Personal responsibility" is only for small fry nailed to the wall by credit card companies under the new bankruptcy law; big-time shareholders get to just walk away from their debts such as pension obligations during corporate bankruptcy proceedings.
Ding, dong, the union busting corporation is dead.
With Verizon taking over MCI, the telecommunications world has been clensed of one of the worst, most destructive companies in American history.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, MCI lied and maneuvered through the regulatory agencies and courts to undermine phone regulations that has benefited poor local phone residents. It also became one of the worst union busters in the industry, fighting to use lower wages and working conditions to win out competitively. With its acquisition by WorldCom, MCI went on to become part of one of the largest corporate frauds in history.
So this is a good day to celebrate.
See the debate between Liza Featherstone Contributing Editor, The Nation and Jonathan Tasini, President, Economic Future Group vs. Ben Edwards, American Business Editor, The Economist and Steven Malanga, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute.
Wal-Mart seems to have been caught illegally spying on unions and possibily paying off selective workers with bribes not to unionize. Having designated its former number two executive, Thomas Coughlin, as the fall guy, we will see what comes out of the criminal investigation. Since this will give both the government and civil litigants a solid reason to examine the company's whole anti-union campaign budget, who knows what may be revealed?
Back in the 1930s, some of the most explosive public relations disasters for industry were the revelations of anti-union spying by companies. When the public saw companies turn their workplaces into a fascimile of a totalitarian state -- with spies, informants and punishment for any hint of dissent -- the anti-company backlash was profound. Which is no doubt why Wal-Mart is panicked enough to dump its old number two guy Couglin overboard in a desperate attempt to minimize the public relations meltdown it may be facing.
Following up on the post about the vote at the Denver Wal-Mart, this story has a quote by a Wal-Mart worker who hates her treatment by the company but still voted against the union:
Alicia Sylvia, a single mother of 10-year-old twins, was a big union booster at the outset.That pretty much highlights the effectiveness of anti-union campaigns leading up to an NLRB election. Essentially, Wal-Mart says that since they'll continue to violate labor law after the vote and fire people who try to strike, resistance is futile. Wal-Mart uses its own reputation for intimidation and retaliation as an electioneering tool."Compared to other stores, we don't even make what cashiers make," said Ms. Sylvia, who earns just under $9 an hour writing up service orders as cars arrive at the garage and says she cannot afford Wal-Mart's health insurance.
She acknowledged that the antiunion videos had helped turn her against unionizing.
"I really wish Wal-Mart would become better," she said. "But even if we get a union, it will be a long battle. Wal-Mart doesn't have to agree to anything. The message we got was, 'You're a small bunch of guys, and you can stand out there and strike, and we're going to replace you.' They'll never agree to a contract, out of pure stubbornness. I'm so confused."
Kevin Drum and Max Sawicky got into a small debate on whether Wal-Mart's homogenization of products in favor of cheaper prices is worth the tradeoff. Brad Plumer thinks that Wal-Mart might not be so pernicious in that effect, since it might encourage other stores to INCREASE their variety of products in order to compete against Wal-Mart. Brad hastens to add that this issue isn't as important as whether Wal-Mart is violating labor rights, but I think it is a critical issue.
One reason I support a strong regulatory approach to raise wages and promote unionization at Wal-Mart, rather that just trying to keep them out, is that I think many people do find what Wal-Mart offers attractive-- and would find it attractive even if prices went up marginally to support decent wages. MORE...
Bush officials are so anti-worker that even when they defend the Wal-Mart deal under fire, they expose their pro-corporate agenda. In comments, flygal found compelling this oped in the Miami Herald by Victoria Lipnic, who heads the Employment Standards Administration in the Bush DOL. But instead of giving an example of other companies with the same deal -- which she can't since the Wal-Mart details are far sweeter -- the Bush official instead "pivots" and uses the platform for a not-so-subtle attack on labor unions:
Most employers -- and unions -- are given advance notice of an inquiry so that they can assemble the necessary documents and personnel for review.It's the nice rhetorical game of comparing investigations of Wal-Mart letting children play with chainsaws as morally equivalent to financial audits of unions. But of course, the Bush administration is more interested in auditing unions than investigating companies like Wal-Mart. As this anti-union organization celebrates, the Bush budget reflects this bias:Even with complaint-driven audits of union finances, for example, it is not unusual for a large union to be given 30 days or more to prepare. This isn't for the benefit of the employer or union but to help our investigators do their work.
While the Dept. of Labor's overall budget is decreased by 4.4 pct. from FY 2005, the U.S. Office of Labor-Mgmt. Standards includes an increase of $7 million to fight fraud and corruption in labor unions. Money would be used to beef up audits, help hire 48 new auditors, and investigate and combat embezzlement of union funds.The Bush DOL couldn't be clearer, in both their rhetoric and their budget, that they don't care about violations of the law by big corporations. They want to turn the Department of Labor into a police unit to break unions, even as they give companies like Wal-Mart a free pass. What's amazing is that even when caught at their game, as with the Wal-Mart deal, they can't play down their anti-worker rhetoric even for a second.
Wal-Mart has become so radioactive that even other capitalists don't want to associate with them:
Facing intense opposition, a large real estate developer has dropped its plans to include a Wal-Mart store in a Queens shopping complex, thwarting Wal-Mart's plan to open its first store in New York City.The decision of Wal-Mart to pull out in the face of labor and community opposition is part of a broader trend in New York City of scrutinizing the labor policies of other big box stores in the city. Just two weeks ago, the City Council's Land Use Committee unanimously voted to block a Bronx site for a proposed B.J.'s Wholesale Club, a notoriously anti-labor company.
Still, I'm ultimately skeptical that these strategies to just block Wal-Mart from major cities is enough. There are thousands of Wal-Marts already built across the country, so we need a strategy, town by town, city by city, to force them to raise labor standards and grant public access to their property to allow labor and community groups to educate the public and employees about problems at Wal-Mart, as well as at similar retail outfits. As previously discussed, the City of Hartford already has enacted a public access law, Montana is proposing to require that large retailers pay a living wage or face additional taxation, and the City of Chicago is debating a bill to require both access and living wages by large retailers.
Wal-Mart is no doubt here to stay as part of the fabric of our economy. But just as the anti-union auto corporations of the 1920s were forced to improve job conditions for their workers in the 1930s and 1940s by a combination of legislation and union organizing, so too must we work to force Wal-Mart to become a responsible employer that is a net contributor to labor standards, and not a drain on our public resources.
According to this story and author Stephen Greenhouse says "several career department officials said that Wal-Mart had improper control over what the department could say because the settlement stated that Wal-Mart and the department would 'develop the terms of any joint or separate statement' about the agreement." The seeming creative control by Wal-Mart over the press release is one of the more obvious slimy aspects of the deal, and while the Labor Department denies that Wal-Mart exercised such control, they have yet to explain the mystery of the two press releases. [Note that the DOL due to the public scrutiny has restored the original press release to the DOL web site since my blog post.]
Under pressure from Congressman George Miller, the Inspector General of the Department of Labor has agreed to investigate "the circumstances surrounding" the signing of the sweetheart deal with Wal-Mart. We'll see if we get more than a whitewash, but a small victory nonetheless!
Some folks have wondered whether Wal-Mart's deal was par for the course with the Bush administration's pro-corporate policies, or a really special treat for one of its top corporate donors.
According to Hill Democrats who have now analyzed other corporate compliance deals, the answer is that Wal-Mart was given a real sweetheart deal. The DOL tried to argue the Wal-Mart deal was just like compliance agreements signed with Sears and Foot Locker, but that's not what close analysis of the Wal-Mart deal shows:
Read the whole analysis at the link. The bottom line is that no corporation has ever been given this kind of "get out of jail free card" by the Department of Labor. Essentially, Wal-Mart was free to violate the law at will and, if it got caught at any time, all it had to do was give the money stolen from its employees back within fifteen days. And anywhere the company wasn't caught, it could just pocket the money. And in no case would the company ever have to pay another fine.Wal-Mart is given 15 days advance notice for ANY wage and hour investigation (not just child labor violations). Sears and Foot Locker were given 10 days notice for child labor investigations only.
the advance notice to Wal-Mart applies to ANY store. The advance notice to Sears and Foot Locker was limited to a small number of stores that fit into a particular set of circumstances.
The Sears and Foot Locker agreements required the companies to implement a comprehensive self-auditing system, the results of which must be provided to the DOL upon request. The Wal-Mart agreement does not require such comprehensive self-auditing.
the Wal-Mart agreement gives the company a 10-day abatement period to bring the store into compliance following a DOL finding of a violation. There is no abatement period in the Sears and Foot Locker agreements. Those companies were expected to fix the problem immediately or face penalties.
the Wal-Mart agreement contains a provision restricting how the DOL may communicate with the public or media about the agreement. There is no such provision in the Sears or Foot Locker agreements.
I'm not sure what's happened to Lou Dobbs, who was once an impeccably pro-business reporter but has converted in recented years into a voice of periodic economic populism (although often with an anti-immigrant Buchanesque feel).
Check out this interview with Congressman George Miller (transcript of the interview below). Dobbs asks the real question:
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this. Because we are in a situation in this country, in our economy, in our society in which corporate America -- and U.S. multinationals, in particular -- have unprecedented political power, influence in your party, influence in the Republican Party, domination on Capitol Hill and certainly the White House, organized labor is an impotent force by all measures here today. What countervailing influence is there for the middle class, for working men and women in this country period?Good question by Dobbs, and Miller gives a good answer about the danger: MORE...
But censors the gory details
Here's the press release issued by the Department of Labor. It highlights the fine paid by Wal-Mart and it's agreement to comply with the law, but fails to even mention the deal to prohibit DOL investigations until Wal-Mart corporate headquarters is given a heads up to whitewash their operations.
And this was actually the second press release issued. The first was quickly recalled, because its first paragraph read:
The U.S. Department of Labor has fined Wal-Mart $135,540 in civil money penalties for violating the youth employment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The department's Wage and Hour Division found that Wal-Mart allowed teenage workers to operate hazardous equipment resulting in one teenager being injured while operating a chain saw.Watch that last phrase, since in the replacement press release, all that is said is:
The U.S. Department of Labor has fined Wal-Mart $135,540 inNo mention of teenagers being injured by chainsaws. You might wonder about the change, but apparently there is a provision in the agreement with Wal-Mart that they had joint control over how the agreement would be described to the public.
civil money penalties for violating the youth employment provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for allowing teenage workers to operate
hazardous equipment.
So not only did Wal-Mart get a slap on the wrist and a secret deal to help them avoid prosecution for future violations, Wal-Mart got creative control of the DOL press operations. Unbelievable!
Whole original press release after the jump MORE...
It emerged yesterday that most of the child labor violations in the Wal-Mart settlement with the DOL happened in Connecticut. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is denouncing the deal and has announced that the state will have to take up the slack:
"In effect it gives the company an unusual, if not unique, amount of time to avoid or even cover up evidence in the future," Blumenthal said. "And it certainly diminishes the usefulness of any future federal investigation, which is why the state has an obligation to undertake a more proactive and aggressive role."The message is clear. Employees can't trust the federal government now, since the feds are committed to handing their names over to management, rather than punishing the employer for abuses. So state governments have to take up the slack on enforcing labor rights, just as they've had to take up the slack on consumer protection, financial regulation and a host of other areas in the last four years.
From a press release by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce:
After disclosure of a secret agreement between the U.S. Department of Labor and Wal-Mart giving the giant retailer the authority to conduct its own investigations of employee wage and hour complaints, Representative George Miller (D-California) today requested an investigation by the DOL's Inspector General to determine whether the arrangement represents a sweetheart deal between the Bush Administration and one of the nation’s most frequent violators of labor laws...Folks need to call their legislators and demand that they support Miller's investigation into this DOL deal with Wal-Mart.Miller said that such an arrangement could allow the giant employer to cover up evidence of a violation and would discourage aggrieved employees who might fear retribution from the company. Miller also sent a letter to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao today asking for more information about the arrangement.
"I am very concerned about this secret arrangement between Wal-Mart and the Bush Administration," said Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "This is a company that has been accused of a lengthy list of labor violations. Wal-Mart does not have the credibility to serve as an impartial investigator of accusations of labor violations against itself. I intend to find out how this arrangement was reached and, if appropriate, I will consider asking Congress to rescind the agreement if it cannot be justified."
"Once again, it looks like the Bush Administration is doing a favor for a powerful friend and contributor at the expense of workers who do their jobs and still cannot get fair treatment in the workplace."
Okay, this is sweet. In my book on the rise of the Internet, I spend parts of multiple chapters on the evils of MCI: its gaming of regulations, its corporate subsides at the expense of the public, its gobbling up of independent Internet providers in its attempt to strangle them. And MCI-WorldCom was one of the nastiest, union-busting companies out there.
So to watch MCI fall to a unionized Baby Bell is just lovely.
May 2006 * * April 2006 * * March 2006 * * February 2006 * * January 2006 * * December 2005 * * November 2005 * * October 2005 * * September 2005 * * August 2005 * * July 2005 * * June 2005 * * May 2005 * * April 2005 * * March 2005 * * February 2005 * * January 2005 * * November 2004 * * October 2004 * * September 2004 * *