Microsoft workers feel the pain

Workers in the textile, steel, and manufacturing industries have been losing jobs, wages and benefits for years, but most of America turned a blind eye to the situation. That may be changing according to David Sirota, because the upper-middle professional class is starting to feel some pain - and they're starting to make some noise.

From Windows Into Populism’s Rise, here's a snippet of Sirota's recent visit to Microsoft's headquarters:

Pundits today seem puzzled by the Lou Dobbs-ification of politics — the sudden political emergence of economic issues such as trade, jobs, wages and even immigration, and the meteoric ascendance of populist red-state politicians such as Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, also a Democrat, demanding immediate change. But on a recent trip to the iconic capital of the upper- middle class professional, it all made perfect sense.

With buzzing twentysomething worker bees and beige low-rise buildings dotting a bucolic setting, the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash., looks like a cross between a university and a suburban office park. The comfortably tranquil image is carefully massaged by company icon Bill Gates, who cheerily testified to Congress this month that “anyone here in the United States who has [computer engineering] skills is going to have a super-high-paying jobs.” Yet a darker reality emerges when talking to workers.

They pointed me to company documents published by the worker advocacy group WashTech, proving Microsoft salaries for mid-level full-time employees have been stagnating, even as company revenues rise. They fumed over how the company employs thousands of “permatemps” — full-time employees technically designated “temporary” so the company does not have to pay them as well or provide them benefits.

Showing how the immigration backlash extends beyond odious xenophobia and into legitimate economic worries, they lamented that wages are forced ever lower by Microsoft’s use of the H-1B visa program — a program that forces permatemps to compete with temporary, nonresident workers from other countries who are imported here by companies because they will accept low pay (government data shows tech companies pay H-1B workers $13,000 per year less than American workers in the same jobs). “They say they need H-1B’s because they can’t find a qualified American,” whispered one permatemp in the hall outside his office. “What they really mean is they can’t find a cheap American.”

Pay grades are only part of the ferment — it is also anxiety over job security at a time when 1.1 million American information-sector jobs have been eliminated in the past five years. While Gates told Congress that the demand for highly skilled computer workers “is going to guarantee them all jobs,” one 10-year Microsoft “permatemp” making $25-per-hour with no benefits told me everyone knows better.

“You can knock yourself out here and do your best and fix a thousand bugs,” he said. “But at the end of that, they can — and often do — just say goodbye. And everyone here knows that.”

Another permatemp said that while he helped build the new Vista operating system, he found not one Microsoft division that doesn’t fear showing up and having their keycards not work because all their jobs were sent to India. That concern is justified: A Microsoft slide presentation, also uncovered by WashTech, shows the company encourages foreign outsourcing in most major decisions.

WashTech has tried to convert workers’ anger into union drives. But those grinning, business-casual Microsoft executives have learned a thing or two about how to bust unions. One example: When a handful of Microsoft workers developing fledgling tax software took an initial step to unionize, the entire project was terminated by management. [emphasis mine]

As Sirota's article pointed out, when rich people's kids had to serve in Vietnam after the draft lottery was created, pressure to end the war changed policy; when companies like Enron started undermining the savings of rich people, Washington passed corporate accountability legislation; and when recent subprime mortgage defaults started hurting the stock market, Congress called it a crisis.

It's a shame that the pain has to trickle up to the rich before Washington takes notice and starts challenging wages, trade and outsourcing. We're all Americans. Getting Washington's attention shouldn't depend on the balance in our checkbook.

It's better on top at Circuit City

The race to the bottom continues:

A new plan for layoffs at Circuit City is openly targeting better-paid workers, risking a public backlash by implying that its wages are as subject to discounts as its flat-screen TVs.

The electronics retailer, facing larger competitors and falling sales, said Wednesday that it would lay off about 3,400 store workers - immediately - and replace them with lower-paid new hires as soon as possible.

The laid-off workers, about 8 percent of the company's total work force, would get a severance package and a chance to reapply for their former jobs, at lower pay, after a 10-week delay, the company said.

The company is calling the layoffs their "wage management initiative," which is the polite way of saying they just gave 3,400 employees the shaft.

"I don't think it's fair," said Hamilton Smith, an 88-year-old retired federal worker who had just purchased some batteries at Circuit City. "You need to give people a living, working wage." He said he would think twice before shopping at the company's stores again.

Circuit City was hardly paying living wages. The retailer pays about $10 to $11 an hour on average, and entry level pay is closer to $8 for inexperienced workers.

Of course, Chief Executive Officer Philip Schoonover does a little better. He made $8.52 million in fiscal 2006, including a salary of $975,000.

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

State Republicans got called on the carpet by the Traverse City Record-Eagle for their double-standard on taxes:

For state Republicans, not all tax hikes are evil

Pretend for a minute that you're a state lawmaker, and take the following quiz.

• What is always better, more taxes or less taxes?

• What is better, approving a two-cent tax on services that would largely wipe out the state deficit (and cost the average taxpayer about $1.40 a month), or making more cuts in public school funding, likely causing layoffs and other cuts in some districts (including some in northern Michigan)?

• If raising taxes is always bad ("I refuse to balance the state budget on the backs of Michigan taxpayers!”) how can it be good to raise the gasoline tax three cents a gallon per year for three years (as Republicans have recommended).

If you favor a gas tax hike but rejected the services tax, explain the difference.

• Why is it OK to raise the tax on gasoline but not raise the diesel fuel tax to the same level or, as some have recommended, to the even higher national average? Explain.

Do you notice the double-standard? No? Then read on for more background:

Republican leaders last week rejected Gov. Granholm's proposed two-cent services tax, the linchpin in her proposal to balance the state budget. Instead, they proposed a $34-per-student cut in state aid. Oddly enough, no one proclaimed "I'm willing to balance the state budget on the backs of Michigan school children.”

Republicans have also proposed across-the-board cuts of 4 to 5 percent for every other state program; they have not, however, replaced the $1.9 billion Single Business Tax.

Instead, Republicans are now proposing (with support from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce) to raise the state gasoline tax nine cents. There is no talk, however, of raising the 15-cent tax on diesel fuel (used mostly by businesses) to the same level as the 19-cent gasoline tax, let alone the national average of about 22 cents. [...]

The GOP and the Chamber opposed the services tax because some businesses may find it difficult and messy (claims of widespread businesses failure were pure baloney) and it made great political hay. Who wants more taxes? On the other hand, public schools are the domain of the hated Michigan Educational Association teachers' union, and are fair game.

Awkwardly, the GOP's gas tax hike could actually cost more than the service tax, which was estimated at $16.80 per taxpayer per year; driving 10,000 miles a year at 20 miles per gallon would cost $45 per vehicle. How's your mileage? [emphasis mine]

So, what have we learned? Our state Republicans put business interests before those of average citizens. What else is new?

Republicans neglect our elderly population

My mother was hospitalized last week after a health emergency and she's being moved to a nursing home today. I wish to protect her identity so I won't go into details, but I will tell you she has Alzheimer's, and because of the added health issues she now requires round the clock care for all activities of daily living. As you might imagine,the past several days have been very difficult for us. There's a chance she'll recover enough to come home (she lives with my sister and brother-in-law), but that's a big "if" at this point in time.

Nursing homes can be scary places for patients, and also for families. We've all heard the horror stories of inadequate care or neglect and none of us want to see our loved ones end up in those kinds of places. We only want the best for them. That's what I woke up thinking about this morning. The facility they're transferring my mother to is nice, but my concern is what happens if this becomes a long-term proposition and her Medicare runs out. My mother is almost 90-years-old and outlived her money years ago. She was fortunate to have children she could live with, but none of us is in the position to help her with nursing home expenses. Mom will end up in a Medicaid facility once her Medicare runs out, and we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that she ends up in a good place. The better nursing homes only take so many Medicaid patients and openings are hard to come by. It's shameful that the level of care an elderly person receives ends up depending on money.

It's also shameful that some insurers have taken advantage of those people who had the means to buy LTC insurance:

Interviews by The New York Times and confidential depositions indicate that some long-term-care insurers have developed procedures that make it difficult — if not impossible — for policyholders to get paid. A review of more than 400 of the thousands of grievances and lawsuits filed in recent years shows elderly policyholders confronting unnecessary delays and overwhelming bureaucracies. In California alone, nearly one in every four long-term-care claims was denied in 2005, according to the state.

“The bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims,” said Mary Beth Senkewicz, who resigned last year as a senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. “They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.” [...]

“These companies have essentially turned their bureaucracies into profit centers,” said Glenn R. Kantor, a California lawyer who has represented policyholders.

Yet these concerns have been ignored by state regulators, advocates say, and have gone unnoticed by federal lawmakers who recently passed incentives intended to promote purchases of long-term-care policies, in the hopes of forestalling a Medicare funding crisis. [emphasis mine]

This is just one more example of privatized services failing to deliver. Washington may be helping the insurance industry by pushing these programs, but they're not helping the people victimized by the system, and they're not helping people like my mother who can't afford the luxury of private long-term care insurance, yet she worked and paid taxes her entire life. In fact, my mother was a "Rosie the Riveter" and worked in a factory during the war. She deserves the same level of care as the next person.

Locally, our state Republicans have shown the same disrespect and disregard for our elderly. Last week, they pushed through a late evening budget plan that would save the state more than $15 million by reducing the wages and hours for people who care for 40,000-plus low-income seniors and the disabled. Pay for home health care aides will be reduced to $7 an hour under their plan, and seniors must find the helpers on their own. They also cut funding to home-delivered meals by $97,000, which as one person said is a small cut, but it's somebody's grandmother who's going to get the phone call saying they can't get meals anymore.

I don't think there's any justification for cutting back services to our elderly or disabled, but that's not how state Republicans see it:

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said the cuts are "painful" but argued that the GOP plan would adequately fund public safety, education and health care and help turn around Michigan.

"Once you get used to a certain level of government, it's hard to trim it back," Bishop said. "But we also know that we have an obligation to the state, to the citizens that we represent, to downsize government."

Excuse me, Sen. Bishop, but you also have an obligation to our elderly. They're citizens too. They paid taxes and contributed to society their entire lives, and now, when we should be doing for them, you want to kick them to the curb? That's disgraceful.

Put yourself in a poor person's shoes just once. How would you feel if your mother needed her adult diapers changed and you couldn't find someone willing to do it for $7 an hour? In fact, would you change diapers, give sponge baths, and strip dirty sheets for $7 an hour? Add into the equation that old people can be difficult and cantankerous to deal with, especially those with dementia, and the pool of caring people willing to work for poverty wages goes down considerably.

Sen. Bishop, you and your Republican cohorts in Michigan and Washington should be ashamed, most people treat they pets better than you treat our elderly.

Michigan's Democrats Vote to Set Deadline

The House of Representives voted 218-212 today to set a firm deadline for our troops to leave Iraq. This reflects the sentiments of 6 in 10 Americans.

Thank you to all of Michigan's Democratic Representives who voted yes on the bill:

John Conyers, John Dingell, Dale Kildee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Sander Levin, and Bart Stupak

Thanks for nothing to all of Michigan's Republican Representatives who voted no:

Dave Camp, Vernon Ehlers, Peter Hoekstra, Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, Candice Miller, Mike Rogers, Fred Upton, and Timothy Walberg.

Now the troops know who really supports them.

Over the weekend, I suggest our state Republicans read what The Economist has to say about their party (especially after the way they voted today):

Collateral damage, The Republican Party is among the war's victims

And to help them understand why:

Mugged by reality. How it all went wrong in Iraq.

Just say NO to bailing out subprime lenders

The US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is holding hearings on the subprime mortgage market to determine the causes and consequences of the turmoil lenders have created. The cause is pretty obvious. From Bloomberg:

"Abusive'' lending and fraud helped fuel a surge in subprime mortgage defaults, the regulator of the biggest U.S. banks told senators probing federal agencies' response to trouble in the markets.

The consequences are obvious too. Experts predict up to two million people will lose their homes, stocks in financial services have taken a hit, and nearly 20 subprime lenders have gone out of business.

Those consequences will also have consequences that could affect the rest of us: U.S. states oppose bailout to subprime lenders

"I strongly encourage Congress to avoid using taxpayer funds to bail out the subprime lenders, brokers and investors that generated our current problem," Joseph Smith, the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, said in remarks prepared for a Senate hearing. [emphasis mine]

Absolutely. I can't believe this idea is even being considered. Why should companies who practiced abusive lending and fraud get a taxpayer bailout when consumers with serious medical bills can't get relief through bankruptcy?

Remember the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005? Republicans said that would strengthen our economy, among other things:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Congress sent "a firm and resounding message" that the federal bankruptcy system "will no longer be a shelter for abuse." And Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said the new law will change America's "when-in-doubt-bail-out" system of dealing with debts.

No double standards. If it's good for the consumer, then it's good for business too.

If anyone should get help, I think it should be the borrowers who were victims of these predatory lenders. Hillary Clinton is pushing for a federally mandated "foreclosure timeout" that would give homeowners more time to catch up on their payments, and she wants to curtail the prepayment penalties that make it hard for troubled borrowers to refinance. Those suggestions seem reasonable, as does the suggestion from the hearing that Congress require lenders to set a default loan for subprime borrowers at a 30-year fixed rate, and to modernize the FHA so that it can lend to some subprime borrowers.

There was one other suggestion from the hearing worth noting too:

Lawmakers should also take the step of requiring lenders to consider a borrower's ability to repay a loan before making one.

Well, of course, that's just common sense, and now the free market will have to live with the consequences of their failure to do the right thing - government intervention.

Bush Administration Channels Rose Mary Woods

Talk about deja vu. From Firedoglake:

President "What, Me Lie?" just took a credibility hit this morning. Via Josh (with a huge H/T to Muck commenter Donp who spotted the gap at 2:19 am!):

I think a commenter in our document dump research thread may have been the first to notice that the emails released by the Justice Department seem to have a gap between November 15th and December 4th of last year….

The firing calls went out on December 7th. But the original plan was to start placing the calls on November 15th. So those eighteen days are pretty key ones. (emphasis mine)

What are you trying to hide, President Bush?

The House panel showed some smarts today and approved subpoenas for Rove and other top White House officials that Bush plans to fight. I say "bring him on." It's time for some public accountability.

Update: Editor & Publisher has a story about this too: Paging Rose Mary Woods: '18-Day Gap' in Release of Latest Emails in 'AttorneyGate'

Asked about the gap today, Tony Snow, White House spokesman said, "I've been led to believe that there's a good response for it, and I'm going to let you ask them (DOJ) because they're going to have an answer."

Yep, but first they have to invent something that sounds plausible.

No Testimony Under Oath from the Values Party

White House Won’t Allow Rove, Miers To Testify

MSNBC’s Mike Viquiera: “Fred Fielding, he’s the White House counsel, he was just here meeting with the House Judiciary Committee. He made the following to the Congress, both House and Senate. He said Rove and Harriet Miers would be offered to the committees for their testimony in the Alberto Gonzales prosecutors scandal. However, it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted." [emphasis added]

Why not let them testify under oath? If they're telling the truth - which they should be since lying is not acceptable to people of values, right? - then they should have nothing to worry about.

Senate Limits Gonzales' Authority

Republicans must really be worried about their chances in 2008:

Senate votes to limit Bush’s power on U.S. attorneys.

In a 94-2 vote, the Senate today voted to “end the Bush administration’s ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ firing of eight federal prosecutors.” The bill will cancel “a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.”

Chris Bond (R-MO) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted no.

It's Better on Top at Pfizer

When Pfizer announced they were leaving the state and eliminating 2,400 jobs, the company said career and retirement counseling and possibly a severance and health care package based on years of service would be offered to those losing their employment. The 1,000 contract workers also faced with losing their jobs will get unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, but the real estate agents who had a rash of cancellations won't be so lucky, and neither will area schools and non-profit organizations who counted on the company for grants that supported their educational efforts.

The vast majority of these workers were just average Americans doing their best to help the company make their record profits. The unemployment benefits and severance packages will help, but until they find new jobs it will be a struggle for them to pay their bills and provide for their families.

Not so for those at the top, who end up in much better shape:

When Pfizer vice chair Karen Katen got passed over in her bid to become chair of the giant drug maker, she prepared to bail out and will leave the company at the end of this month. The Wall Street Journal's Health Blog rummaged through an SEC proxy statement to add up her compensation package: "Katen’s eligible for a pension accrued over a 32-year career that, if taken as a lump sum, would be worth about $40.7 million. Her 401(k) retirement savings plan and some deferred stock are worth another $21.8 million. Add in bonuses, previously disclosed severance of $5.5 million, some stock awards and the like and you come up with the balance of the $76.8 million." She will get an additional $178,000 for unused vacations.

And the money gets better as you go up:

Ex-Pfizer Inc. chief Henry McKinnell got a $200 million retirement package in spite of presiding over a 49% slide in the value of the pharmaceutical giant's stock between 2000 and 2005.

What a stark contrast. Republicans love to brag about "wealth creation" policies, but they neglect to tell you they only benefit those at the top.