By virtue of my state job, I am a member of the AFSME union, a part of the AFL-CIO. My union was the first to endorse Barack Obama for the presidency in the 2008 election. We endorsed him again in December. The news release reads in part:
“President Obama is the only choice for the 99 percent. We must put people back to work, make the 1 percent pay their fair share, and protect Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. President Obama will stand up for working families,” said AFSCME Pres. Gerald W. McEntee.
Nowhere in the release was any mention of the Afghanistan war. When Obama ordered the troop surge in 2009, he made the Afghanistan War his war.
Although soldiers are largely from the working families the union claims to represent, when our individual membership was massed into a single political body, the 99 percent become the 1 percent. We’re only in it for our own economic well-being.
This is nothing new for my union. Dick Meister, former labor editor for the San Francisco Chronicle, reminded us that the AFL-CIO was a major supporter of the Vietnam War. In his Feb. 2 blog, Meister recalled that at its 1969 convention, the AFL-CIO unconditionally supported the Vietnam War and the Vietnam policies of then-President Nixon. The measure was opposed by only six of the 700 delegates — including Art Carter, who offered a substitute resolution that urged the AFL-CIO to “to exercise all possible influence and persuasion on the national administration to effect an immediate major reduction of American military involvement in Vietnam and to bring the Vietnam War to a speedy end. “ He was booed off the stage as a “young punk” by the union faithful.
The Republican presidential candidates — except Ron Paul — all call for even more military and war. But the Republican candidate was not our only other choice. My union could have endorsed a third-party candidate, or nobody at all. At minimum, the endorsement of Obama could have come with resolutions to end the war and take care of our returning veterans.
According to NPR’s Tom Ashbrook, Congress recently passed legislation to qualify soldiers with diagnosed PTSD to a medical retirement. Soon after, President Obama’s military ordered reexamination of the 76,000 soldiers they’d already diagnosed with PTSD. They re-diagnosed 40 percent of those soldiers with other ailments that could take away the military retirement. Some were even sent back to war. Not surprisingly, this was after a federal ombudsman said that each PTSD case could cost $1.5 million in treatment over the lifetime of that soldier. Our government spends billions on cruise missiles and fighter jets. Yet we quibble about the costs of treatment for our soldiers.
All presidential candidates talk about spending. But while they debate tax fairness, they talk little about how taxes are spent. We now spend 39 cents of every income tax dollar on the wars, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Obama has had the highest military budget in our nation’s history.
Although Sen. Mark Begich indicated in February he believes Obama will withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2014 or sooner, former Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eichenbery painted a very different picture on the World Affairs Council radio show just last week on KTOO. He repeatedly stressed that the U.S. is not withdrawing from Afghanistan, we are “transitioning”. He made it clear that we may not leave there in 2014 if Afghanistan is not ready. With the increased violence there — much of it due to our presence — withdrawal may be a long, long way off.
A third of Juneau’s homeless are veterans. Many here and across the country cannot advocate for themselves due to their condition. My union does not advocate, as a political group, for taking care of our returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets or ending the war.
Will we allow our union’s carte blanche endorsement of Obama and his foreign policy to speak for us, or will we call upon our union leaders, our congressional delegation, and our president to care of our vets, remove our troops from Afghanistan, and end funding of war with our grandchildren’s taxes?
• Stopha is a Douglas resident.
Comments (44)
Add commentugh. I've resorted to just
ugh. I've resorted to just shaking my head at Newlife and Mark
Someone doesn't know how
Someone doesn't know how quotation marks work.
Well, let's see
I pay a percentage of my health care under a union, just like I did when I worked for a private company. I have a deductible, just like I did under the private company.
I get an annual raise, just like I did when I worked for a private company. I also got a Christmas bonus under the private company, which I do not get as a union member.
I make a reasonable salary for someone with a master's degree - it might actually be a little less than I would be making in the private sector. I own a modest home, an old truck, and a friend who lives down the street and works for a non-profit makes about twice what I do.
I do pay into a retirement plan, with some matching by my employer, which would also most likely be part of my package if I worked for a large company.
What I make goes back into the local economy - I buy groceries, gas, furniture, dirt, flowers, clothing, etc. My only "offshore" expenditures are when I take a vacation to another country.
How exactly am I burdoning our children?
I find it so interesting that folks like NewLife can go on and on about the virtues of capitalism, and how an investment banker or CEO making billions by pushing bad loans or liquidating grandma and grandpa's retirement funds when they 'restructure' to show higher profits so the board and CEO get huge bonuses they then shelter in offshore accounts, while moving jobs overseas as fast as they can are somehow 'more deserving' of making a living (largely at the expense of others) than the nurse living down the street, the teacher who helped your 4th grader learn multiplication tables, or the new homeowner down the block who buys raffle tickets from your kid, pays her taxes, donates to the local cancer society, etc.
In what twisted world am I the enemy? And who exactly am I hurting?
I think....
This idea that somehow union workers are hurting state and local budgets is a bill of goods being sold to people by those who'd like to squeeze the middle class. For what reason I don't know - I'm not sure why that would be an economically sound strategy in anyone's mind.
I think particularly in Alaska, it's pretty clear that the unions aren't damaging the state - heck, according to Governor Parnell we have between 2 and 4 Billion in "extra" funds to just give away. Problems arise, particularly with indebtedness, when for years and years, Legislatures choose to fund "campaign" projects, instead of making responsible payments to debt they KNOW is there.
It's exactly like if you bought a car - you drive the car for years, but you don't make the payments. Eventually, that bill is going to come due. A responsible person makes the payments, and buys the fancy couch only after the bills are paid.
Frankly - I'm surprised anyone buys this "local unions are bad" argument.
Right, attack the unions.
I have never been a union member. But I know, through history, why unions were formed. Unions fought some very bloody wars on our own soil to achieve a 'fair playing field' for workers, akin to the civil rights movement. The playing field has changed, thanks mostly to those brave souls facing strike-breakers, unchecked management and monopolistic industrial powers. I am not ready to throw the unions onto the trash-heap of a revised American history just yet.
By the way, is it coincidental this article was printed on May 1st?
Mr. Stopha's argument seems
Mr. Stopha's argument seems to be that unions shouldn't endorse political candidates based on their Afghanistan and Iraq positions and should ignore their other positions. In essence, he's asking unions to ignore policy positions that affect them and only focus on their foreign policy positions.
Seems a bit silly. It'd be great if unions were overtly anti-war, but realistically, in a CAPITALIST SYSTEM founded on SELF-INTEREST, it's not going to happen. Nor should it. If unions were to endorse Ron Paul, and Ron Paul were elected because of it, unions would largely cease to exist.
I am uncomfortable
that unions, as a whole, seem wed to Democratic candidates and agendas when the law of averages would suggest a relevant number of union members may well be voting for an opposing party. Could a President bust a Union? Yes, but this has proven to only strengthen their cause in the long-term.
Newlife
In your endeavors to target who is at fault for bankrupting our country...those on top of the food-chain have little need for Union representation.
NewLife
Do you have any proof for your claims? Or are you just assuming it must be true because it fits your ideology?
Newlife
You have very valid points. I have shared your opinions in the past. Then I went shopping. Every stick of furniture, most every clothing attire, many electronic devices and car parts...stamped with an overseas country. I do not see a stampede of Union workers boarding a boat for China, etc. The 'war' we are facing today is a 'price war' because Americans are struggling to get from one paycheck to another. We must get the best deal. And the best deal comes from corporations who offers the best deal, and the best return, for American shoppers and stockholders. I think 'patriotism' has reached a point no-one can afford. Unions are not your enemy.
And Juneau, Alaska is not the end, or the beginning.
"If any man tells you he
"If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool." ― Abraham Lincoln
Newlife is just trolling and flaming...ignore him.
beancounting
We must not ignore those who inflame, lest the whole house shall burn.
Richard Trumka
stops by the WH regularly, I guess to say hi or maybe for some other reason, who knows who cares. Mark clearly thinks for himself (as do most others) so what if a 1%er like Trumka says so & so's are man/woman, when the curtains drawn you vote for whoever you've chosen.
Newlife......who exactly
has a $10 copay? I've certainly never had one that low.
I'm really trying to understand why someone would buy into the vilification of their friends and neighbors.
Perhaps if you could lay aside the rhetoric for a minute, and the lables, and explain why you think labor alone is bankrupting states, we might get somewhere.
First - state spending - as evidenced by our own, is made up of a lot of different things. I don't think anyone would disagree that politicians would rather buy votes with new projects, than pay the bills on old ones? So how is it the fault of someone who worked as a policeman for 25-30 years, that the state now wants to cut your retirement because for all those years they should have been making the payments, they decided instead to build a new bridge, or give money to oil companies? Doesn't that person have the right to expect what was promised?
Second - as to companies 'abusing' workers - There are lots of ways companies still abuse workers and stay in business - ask a coal miner who's company consistently cuts corners on safety (as evidenced by the mining deaths in the last couple of years) and instead pays cheaper fines when they are caught. Ask Apple, who does just fine as a company, because they ship their labor costs overseas, where Chinese workers get $5.00 a day to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. This speaks to Ken's point - many of our goods are made overseas, which is a catch-22. Cost and standards of living are higher here - we can't rent a house for $100 a month, we expect clean water and good hospitals, safe food. All of which costs money. Are you expecting workers here to lower their pay to overseas standards? To what end?
I'm interested in your view of corporations. Story after story in the news talks about corporations moving jobs overseas, cutting retiree benefits (or "restructuring" and canceling benefits alltogether that workers have paid into for 30 years - in order to show a profit.) cutting corners on safety, etc. etc. Do you really think that Apple, GE, BP and the like are benevolent corporations taking the best care of their employees just because it's the right thing to do, regardless of the bottom line? What examples or experiences shape that idea for you?
Lastly, if taxes are a percentage of your income, whether you believe in a flat tax or a sliding scale, someone making 20,000 per year would pay less than someone making 200,000 per year (presumably). Wouldn't it ALWAYS be a good thing for everyone to be more successful, and of course that would mean (even with a flat tax) they would pay into the collective pot a little more?
Are you against success?
Good point islandhopper
****
Don't read anti union
What I read is that Mr Stopha doesn't like being told how to vote by his union. For him this election is about the war, our soldiers, for him those are the issues that matter. He has a right to feel that way. He is trying to encourage other union members to vote according to how they feel on issues, not the way a union president tells them they should.
I read he feels let down by the Democratic Party when it comes to how the middle east has been handled. That is a valid feeling. So is the feeling that his union by their silence against it, is also supporting current policies.
Some one else came along and co-opted this piece for their own anti union stance. Why give that nonsense legs? Why give it air time?
swimmergirl
Well articulated!
Ivmykyk
Good point. Sometimes we go off the reservation! Sorry.
Ivmykyk
Being from the Vietnam era, as a sailor far off-shore on a destroyer, I still take offense to the 'police-action' being tossed about so easily to make some convoluted point. I lost family members in direct combat on the ground. These men were not complaining about the Unions at home. They were incensed about D.C. politics and Jane Fonda striding enemy anti-aircraft guns. Unions, try as they might, had little effect in the war effort!
And guess what? They were not the vets 'friends' on the home-front when they returned.
Ken
My memories of "police action" are a little more current, but not much. For me those words bring to mind marines being used for target practice in Beruit. Not allowed to return fire til a fellow solier lay wounded or dead. It sickens me and breaks my heart.
I want our men and women home. It makes sense no matter how you look at it. We make enemies by being over there. We waste money by being over there. We damage our own by sending them over there. Bring them home. UN forces are meant to be the police force not our miltary. We supply them with troops of course. But how bout we supply troops on a sliding scale on par with the other countries? If it is so important to the world, let the world pitch in.
Ivmykyk
I am with you totally. Bring everyone home...now. But bear in mind, America is not set up to absorb this number...keep them enlisted...we do it in many foreign stations don't we? Give these service members a transition period, with their families as called for but please, do not simply release them into this economy. Too soon they become the 'invisible' forces!
Afghanistan
Can anyone tell me again WHY we are in Afghanistan, and American soldiers are dying?
What is our mission exactly?
How is this making us safer when American soldiers are dying over there? Are they not worthy of protection too?
How are a bunch of goat herding Taliban even a remote threat to the world's mightiest military industrial machine?
Oh, wait, we need a war somewhere so that Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock will continue to rise.
And Afghanistan seems to work just fine.
But ultimately, there is no mission, there is no purpose and there is no real threat to our interests in Afghanistan.
Seriously. I challenge everyone in here to explain to me while we still have troops there, and how that makes America better or safer.
There is no reason.
Bring them home. All of them. Now. Alive.
Ken
Of course keep them enlisted. Just because we aren't on foreign soil doesn't mean we do not still need our military. I see no reason to downsize, just change location. We will still save money, and maintain a military force adequate to protect our shores or show off for the next measuring contest. But they can be home, with their families.
Jo
"They" are not a bunch of goat herding Taliban. Our enemies have recognized our superiority in technology. They have gone underground, or 'low tech', meaning mules and other beasts of burdens. Our tech wizards and border security checkpoints place little importance on these individuals.
It is a weakness. It is called arrogance, and we will pay greatly.
lvmykyk - of course you are right
....it was not a terrifically well written letter, but that seems to be his point.
I confess then to being ignorant regarding the voting policies of Unions, do we all vote, does the board of elected representatives vote, etc.
Either way, it seems the way to effect change in this instance might be to run for one of the representative positions.
Ivmykyk
We are on the same page.
swimmergirl
No, 'the best way to effect change' is to become aware of the policies of Unions. Otherwise are you not simply exasperating the situation? "Let the leaders decide for my best interest"? "They know best". Are you a Union member?
SG
I don't know how all unions work, I think with the state there are reps from within the workforce. But I am really not sure.
The operator's union hires a local rep. Typically from the membership, but they do become a union employee vs an elected rep.
I am not a union employee so I have not a clue how the voting works. But as far as union President, I fear it has more in common with electing the Pope than our President. Just speculation mind you, based on observations of other boys clubs.
Ivmykyk
I could have done without the reference to the Pope. Just speculation, mind you.
Ken
It was a bit more universal reference of the top voting in the top than say a Masonic, Grand/ Supreme, reference. Not meant to refer to religion.