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.")

Email Propaganda in My Inbox

I received the following email message from two different people yesterday.

Definitely something to consider before you cast your vote this election!!!

A short, but poignant, independent film on government-sponsored healthcare systems. Anyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 must see this.

This is the independent film: A Short Course in Brain Surgery

That link explains the film is part of the Free Market Cure Video Series created to inform Americans about the dangers of collectivized medicine and the benefits of free markets in health care. In this particular case, "A Short Course in Brain Surgery" highlights the story of Lindsay McCreith, "a man with a cancerous brain tumor who crossed the border to the U.S. to get the medical care that is rationed in his home country." You can read more about McCreith here and here.

I never heard of Free Market Videos so I decided to do some digging and hit pay dirt right away. An entertaining blog called the Hillbilly Report already dug up information on them. Basically, the film is partly funded by the Moving Picture Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and one of their board members is Freyda Levy. Freyda co-founded the New Jersey chapter of Americans for Prosperity - the limited government, free market group that teaches grassroot activitists how to lobby legislators - and she also serves on the board of Club for Growth. You get the picture.

The film and its backers are trying to convince voters that government health care isn't the answer, and they're using this one example from Canada to make their point. The problem is that no one ever said Canada's health care was perfect. We've all heard the stories about patients waiting for hours in Canadian emergency rooms. But guess what? The average length of stay in U.S. emergency rooms in 2005 hit 3 hours and 42 minutes. And for every Lindsay McCreith in Canada, there's a Nataline Sarkisyan in the United States. Nataline is the 17 year-old girl from California who died five days after her insurance company refused to approve her liver transplant.

Actually, Lindsay McCreith is fortunate that he had government health care to fall back on at the first sign that something was wrong. That's not the case for thousands of uninsured Americans. Consider these facts from Families USA:

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

Across the United States, in 2006, twice as many people died from lack of health insurance as died from homicide.

Uninsured adults are more likely to be diagnosed with a disease in an advanced stage. For example, uninsured women are substantially more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage breast cancer than women with private insurance.

The bottom line is that other countries health systems have their problems, but each one seems to deliver a better total package than the one here at home. That point was made in a new documentary on PBS called Sick Around the World. The film is underwritten by The Kaiser Foundation and hosted by Washington Post correspondent T.R. Reid. Jonathan Cohn says viewers will find this film has an evenhandedness viewers didn't find in "Sicko" (and I didn't find in "A Short Course in Brain Surgery"). This is what Cohn has to say:

In England, the film notes, patients frequently wait for elective services; in Germany, physicians are unhappy that they don't get paid more; in Japan, the government's hyper-aggressive price controls have led to chronic underfunding. And yet the new film also puts these drawbacks in their rightful context. Every system the film portrays has its problems, but overall each one seems to deliver a better total package than the one in the U.S.

The most interesting case study is probably Taiwan. A few years ago, when Taiwan decided to revamp its health care system, it studied other countries to determine which system might work best. Its conclusion? A single-payer system--one in which the government insures everybody directly--made the most sense.

[...] Today, the people of Taiwan have guaranteed access to health care--and, according to the film, it's very good health care. There are no chronic waiting lists, like you find in Britain, and the care is very advanced. Among other things, Taiwan is among the world leaders in establishing electronic medical records--an innovation that should significantly improve care by keeping doctors and nurses better informed about patient histories and, no less important, avoiding potentially dangerous drug interactions.

Cohn admits that politically single-payer is still a tough sell in this country, but "Sick Around the World" makes it clear that alternatives work well too.

The reports from Germany, Japan, and Switzerland make it clear that it's possible to have everything Americans like about their health care system--quick access, choice of doctor and provider, high quality care--while covering everybody and spending less.

That brings me back to that email I referred to at the beginning. I need to consider the candidates plans before I vote in November. Back to Cohn:

The presidential candidates don't talk about other countries, except (for opponents of universal coverage, like McCain) to bash them.

But both of the Democrats call for covering everybody--and for overhauling the system so that it can achieve the sorts of efficiencies the best systems abroad have realized. Their plans, if implemented as they've been drawn up, would make American health care look a lot like the Swiss version.

Neither plan would accomplish that transition overnight... Still, that's a far cry from what McCain and much of his party advocates, which is essentially to fix the existing patchwork with even more patches. And that's a crucial difference of which viewers (and voters) should be aware.

Hmm...patches or the efficiencies the best systems abroad have realized? No-contest. I'm voting Democrat.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

About those speeding Iranian boats, Charlie

I wonder what Charlie Gibson has to say about this story after he so willingly acted like a propagandist for President Bush?

From ABC News:

Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship. [...]

The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.

Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by.

Yipes, I sure am glad Charlie's not in a position to push "the button" based on someone else's hearsay.

UPDATE: Juan Cole has a post that explains this incident in great detail. He said it's looking more and more like a serious error if not a Republican Party fabrication. Imagine that.

Charles Gibson - Propagandist

Did you happen to see ABC World News last night? Charles Gibson introduced a segment of film showing Iranian swift boats confronting our naval ships in the Persian Gulf, and he went on to report that Bush called the incident an "act of provocation." Gibson should have stopped there and let the film roll, instead he went on to say "provocation was an understatement," as the film would show. (I couldn't find a transcript or video of that clip. I'll keep trying.)

The minute those words left Charlie's mouth my husband and I looked at each other with raised eyebrows. Iran was trying to provoke the US Navy and we were completely innocent? I don't think so.

Neither does David Lindorff, investigative reporter, who asked, What Is This ‘Iranian Provocation’ BS?

Not one news story about this week’s latest chapter in the administration’s ongoing effort to gin up a crazy war with Iran–the so-called “provocation” caused by Iranian naval speedboats approaching within 200 meters of a US destroyer–mentioned that the US, which sits some 7500 miles away from Iran, has sent a whole fully-armed armada into the Persian Gulf just off Iran’s coast.

Or that the Vice President actually flew out to an aircraft carrier that was part of that US armada, and threatened, from the flight deck, to have the US massively attack Iran.

Just who is provoking whom where?

See my point? Now consider this:

Imagine, for a moment, that Iran had sent its navy to patrol in the Gulf of Mexico, in international waters just off of the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and that its leader flew out to one of those ships and threatened to take out America’s oil infrastructure.

How do you think the US government would react? How do you think the American people would react?

Do you think the US would send naval vessels out to provokingly sail close to Iranian ships? Do you think the US might do more than that and maybe sink those ships? (Especially if at that very moment Iranian special forces were operating inside the US, creating havoc and supporting subversive elements, as US special forces are already doing in Iran.)

I'm pretty certain we'd bomb them into oblivion (that's been our MO in the past), but here's the part that Charles Gibson might care to consider:

I’m not saying that Iran’s decision to move aggressively to challenge US naval power off their shores is necessarily the wisest move, but at least American journalists and editors ought to have the decency and ethics to point out to readers and viewers that it is the US, not the Iranians, that are provoking things here. [emphasis added]

That's the same point Ron Paul futilely tried to make during the ABC News New Hampshire Debate last weekend. Ironically, Charles Gibson moderated that night and allowed the debate to turn into a free for all. It was like watching a panel of guests on Fox News beat up on each other the way the Republican candidates shouted over Ron Paul and refused to let him talk. This is what Paul tried to say that night:

PAUL: I'm as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don't attack us because we're free and prosperous.

And there all radicals in all elements, in all religions that will resort to violence. But if we don't understand that the reaction is, is because we invade their countries and occupy their countries, we have bases in their country -- and we haven't done it just since 9/11, but we have done that a long time.

I mean, it was the Air Force base in Saudi Arabia before 9/11 that was given as the excuse.

If we don't understand that, we can't win this war against terrorism.

I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but I agree with him on this point, and it bothers me to no end that the media willingly portrays the U.S. as an innocent victim. I've also lost all respect for anchors like Gibson because, as Lindorff summed it up, "our domestic news organizations are playing the willing propagandists here as willingly as did Pravda or TASS in the old Soviet Union." I thought our country and the people who represent us were better than that.

(Cross-posted at BFM)