Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind

My apologies to Bob Marley for stealing a line from his song for my title, but it so perfectly fits how I feel. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and now Ed Schultz. They're like sunshine breaking through the fog. We've been fed misinformation from an industry dominated by conservative voices for far too long, and I feel like the dark clouds are finally starting to lift.

In case you're not familiar with him, Schultz has one of the top-rated progressive shows on radio, “The Ed Schultz Show,” which airs live weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. with a weekly audience of more than 3 million listeners on 100 stations across the country. He's an avid voice for the middle class and Ed is now on MSNBC. “The Ed Show” airs Monday through Friday from 6-7 p.m.

Yesterday, Schultz featured SEIU's Stephen Lerner to talk about the importance of employee free choice and Ed didn't hold back. He said he has an issue with centrist Democrats who aren't going to bat for the middle class. Me too.

Here's video from last night's show to give you a sense of Ed's tenacious style.

Unions Can't be Blamed for Job Losses

How do the right-to-work cheerleaders explain this? Using the February numbers, five of the 10 states with the biggest growth in unemployment are in the South.

State and percent increase in jobless rate since recession began (with current unemployment rate in parentheses)

1. North Carolina: +6 (10.7% -- 4th highest in country)
2. Oregon: +5.4 (10.8%)
3. Rhode Island: +5.3 (10.5%)
4. Nevada: +4.9 (10.1%)
4. Indiana: +4.9 (9.4%)
4. Florida: +4.9 (9.4%)
7. South Carolina: +4.8 (11% -- 2nd highest in country)
7. Georgia: +4.8 (9.3%)
9. Alabama: +4.7 (8.4%)
10. Michigan: +4.6 (12%)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, via Wall Street Journal

The Institute for Southern Studies says unions can't be blamed for these losses.

One interesting point about those high unemployment numbers in the South: They certainly appear to disprove the argument, put forward by opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act, that unions cause higher unemployment.

The Carolinas -- which have among the lowest union density rates in the country -- have also seen some of the largest growth in joblessness.

This suggests that, as many other studies have found, unemployment rises and falls due to a vast array of changes in the economy -- and can't be pinned on unions.

So much for the idea that right-to-work (for less) laws give states a competitive edge.

FedEx Blackmails Congress

This smacks of corporate terrorism. (h/t TPM)

FedEx could cancel contracts for $10 billion in American-made planes if Congress makes it easier for unions to organize the delivery giant's workers.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the Memphis-based company disclosed that purchases of Boeing 777s are contingent on FedEx Express' continued coverage by the National Railway Labor Act.

The disclosure serves as a warning shot to lawmakers seeking to put FedEx Express workers under the National Labor Relations Act, a move seen as helping the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

"It's FedEx political hardball at its finest," said analyst Donald Broughton with Avondale Partners. In a research note Monday, he wrote: "We see FedEx's action as a deft political move that aligns the interests of Boeing and GE with FedEx, and pits the interests of the Teamsters against the interests of the machinist and several other trade unions."

FedEx is threatening to buy French-made Airbuses to upgrade its fleet instead. Why does corporate America hate our country and its workers?

UPDATE: FedEx isn't the only corporation that likes to play hardball. Via Washington Monthly comes information about a recent WSJ article. It basically says banks sent the following message to President Obama after Congress moved to tax their bonuses:

When administration officials began calling them to talk about the next phase of the bailout, the bankers turned the tables. They used the calls to lobby against the antibonus legislation, Wall Street executives say. Several big firms called Treasury and White House officials to urge a more reasonable approach, both sides say. The banks' message: If you want our help to get credit flowing again to consumers and businesses, stop the rush to penalize our bonuses.

Real patriotic, huh? These bankers ruined our economy, put people out of work and literally on the street, and they still want to call the shots. And they wonder why Main Street is so outraged.

UPDATE 2: I should clarify that I interpreted FedEx as threatening to buy Airbuses because of something I read on Wikipedia:

FedEx Express was to have been the launch airline for the Airbus A380 freighter, having ordered ten for delivery between 2008 and 2011 with options on ten more. The company had planned to introduce the first aircraft into service in August 2008 for use on routes between hubs in the United States and Asia. Faced with A380 delays of more than two years, FedEx canceled these orders[20] and replaced them with an order for fifteen Boeing 777 freighters with an option for fifteen more, to be delivered from 2009 through 2011. FedEx has said that Airbus will allow it to transfer its nonrefundable deposits to purchases of future aircraft, and has stated it may consider the A380F when the A380 program is less affected by construction delays. In December 2008, FedEx posponed delivery of some of the 777s: four will be delivered in 2010 as previously agreed, but 2011 deliveries will be only four, rather than the 10 originally planned. Five more will arrive in 2012, and two in 2013.[21] In January 2009, FedEx exercised its options to buy 15 more 777 freighters and acquired options for a further 15.[22]

What better way to wiggle out of their contract, slam the unions and get those planes they previously wanted from Airbus?

Gallup: Majority Support Employee Free Choice Act

The latest Gallup Poll shows that 53 percent of respondents favor a new law that would "make it easier for labor unions to organize workers" versus 39 percent of respondents who oppose such a law. This is amazing support considering the efforts big business is taking to fight it.

Citibank, BOA, Wal-Mart, Burger King, and a couple hundred other U.S. Chamber of Commerce companies are prepared to spend $200 million on advertising and lobbying to block the Employee Free Choice Act. They're also saying some pretty strange things in the process, according to economist Dean Baker.

Recently, they have sought to promote the argument that unions lead to higher unemployment. To help push this case they have been circulating a study that examines differences in unionization rates and unemployment among Canadian provinces. This study purports to find that a 3 percentage point increase in unionization rates leads to a 1 percentage point increase in unemployment. Based on this study, the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act argue that any resulting increase in unionization will cost millions of jobs.

This propaganda is actually being pushed by "something called the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs" — an alliance that happens to include that bastion of "Main Street," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

Baker questions their reasoning:

Of course the immediate response might be to ask, if this study's findings are accurate, why Canada's unemployment rate isn't 7 percentage points higher than the U.S. rate? Canada's unionization rate is about 20 percentage points higher than in the U.S., yet its unemployment rate is somewhat lower.

He also goes on to point out that there's a large body of research on this topic, and the most recent research finds no link between unemployment and unionization rates.

In 2006, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) did an exhaustive analysis of the research on this topic and concluded that there was no link between unionization rates and unemployment. It is easy to find examples of countries with very high unionization rates and low levels of unemployment. For example Norway and Denmark have unionization rates near 80 percent. Before the current crisis their unemployment rate was under 3.0 percent.

Of course we don't have to go overseas to prove the case that unions don't lead to unemployment. If we go back 40 years, the unionization rate was over 30 percent. Presently, it is just over 12 percent. In the 60s, the unemployment rate fell as low as 3.0 percent and was below 5.0 percent for most of the decade.

Unions don't lead to higher unemployment, but the act of unionizing can lead to firings. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "our estimates suggest that almost one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign. Since 2000, illegal firings have marred over one-in-four NLRB-sponsored union elections, reaching 30 percent of elections in 2007."

That's why we need to pass the EFCA. It would strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees when they try to form a union, but more importantly, it would help revive America's middle class. And that's what scares corporate America. They want all the profits for themselves.

(To learn more about the EFCA, read Citizen K's excellent post on the subject. His money quote: "Passing EFCA is not only an important step for unions and employees who want to unionize, it's an important step for anyone with a job.")