In this section, we will be paying more attention to the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the Pentagon and the appropriate oversight committees in Congress.. And won't they be happy?
__________
Our Policy Board
There have been several queries as to who sits on our Policy Board, and this post should should satisfy these questons.
- About Us:
We are a community of self-interest and comprised of the Privates, the Corporals and the Sergeants when we wore our nation’s uniform. Upon our discharge from the military, we, respectively, attended our colleges and universities, and therefore, we have attained our formal credentials, and over the years, our experience has confirmed our certitude and credibility in our areas of expertise. To wit, our Policy Board consists of the following members:
1. Joe Gonzales is from Florida and served in the Navy.
2. Tony De La Cruz is from Texas and served in the Army.
3. Tom Wilson is from Illinois and served in the Army.
4. Don Hoover is from Arizona and served in the Army.
5. Jim Gonzales is from Arizona and served in the Air Force
6. Bill Light is from Arizona, is a non-veteran, and serves in a variety of functionalities by being our primary “technical consultant”.
7. Marcos Peralta is from Arizona and served in the Army.
Posted on 29, 2009
The Chicano Veterans Organization Endorses the EFCA
Now that the legislation for the Employee Free Choice Act has been introduced by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Congressman George Miller of California, it’s time to take a closer look at both arguments—pro and con—having to do with any intelligent debate, aside from the pre-disposition for political progress attendant to the workplace.
As such, the legislation clearly spells out what is and what is not permitted to the extent one reads and interprets what’s been written and understood correctly. And as the rhetoric is ramped up in the coming months, taking a gander at what the conservative politicians and business interests are saying, is supremely important to all of us, and especially in light of our current economic meltdown.
Thus, “EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces.” Not so of course, but the Right is arguing, and incorrectly I might add that “parity” between management and labor already exists.” However, the legislation requires that should the majority of the employees sign what passes for an ‘acceptance/demand’ card, the Employer must negotiate with the newly established employee-union to craft a first-contract. And if after ninety days, the contract cannot be agreed upon, a federal mediator is called in and after this additional thirty days, the federal arbitrator can impose a binding contract between the parties, if they still have not reached an agreement. Consequently, the Right will and is determined to argue that “EFCA replaces good faith bargaining with government imposed contracts.” Obviously, the Right is positing that Management owns all the cards in the deck, and employees can kiss their imperial ring. In the meantime, Management is making their case that if employees, by submitting to management, is the only way employees can ‘have a say’ over working conditions, and in doing so, is to continue in the use of non-union shops. Needless to say, but I will, at present, employees have very little say or input over workplace conditions.
Now, back to the beginning and the critical elements of EFCA. First is Majority Sign-up. This requires employers to recognize a union if the majority of the employees sign-up to indicate their preference. Second is the ‘first-contract’. This schematic requires both labor and management to reach this ‘first contract’ within 90 days. If not, a federal arbitrator enters the picture and is given 30 days to reach this first contract. If labor and management to do not agree, this federal mediator can impose the terms and conditions of the ‘first contract’. As an aside, even when the NLRB sanctions a union, experience teaches that 45% of all efforts to reach a ‘first contract’ fail and ultimately, the union disintegrates due to a lack of success. This schematic in EFCA, if utilized to its conclusion, the union survives and the employees achieve their success for a ‘first contract’. And the third element is that increased penalties would be imposed on management for violations of the National Labor Relations Act due to management firing employees who are advocating as well as dedicated to union organizing.
And with the above paragraph now understood by our dedicated members, a new storyline or meme is being posited by the Chambers of Commerce and its Head Honcho, Tom Donahue. He says flat out and with no punches pulled, the following:
“You’ve got to go up there and tell them (Congress) what will happen [if the bill passes], that no one is going to add a single job in the United States. Will I put a job here where it will get unionized in an illegal way? No, I will put it somewhere else.”
Of course, Donahue is ‘pounding it home’ and in no uncertain terms and thereby avoiding any misunderstanding, by suggesting that he will ‘outsource’ the job to another nation where the cost of labor is cheaper and the foreign government will kowtow to Corporate America. However, if the EFCA passes, it will not be illegal, and it’s not illegal now where majority sign-up is utilized and Management is accepting of the union.
Consequently, the leadership for Organized Labor is always politically astute since they earn the big bucks, and thusly, I would not be surprised to see a television ad paid for by their union membership and which articulates that “Unions are offering folks higher paid jobs and with better benefits, and businesses are offering to outsource your job”. Such an ad campaign would be devastating to the Chambers of Commerce and their Roster of Corporate Clientele such as Big Business.
And lest we not forget, employees in the Service Sector, including health workers and transportation workers wanting to organize as it pertains to their self-interest, are jobs that are not likely to be outsourced in such companies as Wal Mar and Target, and various long haul outfits that transit America, among others. But the use of outrageous rhetoric by Corporate America will not be stymied one iota. And the Democrats in the Senate can look forward to the money-largesse showered onto them by Corporate America and which will move the votes into the column for Corporate America. As such, it’s not influence peddling, but the ‘messiness’ found in a participatory Democracy.
As to the actual politics of EFCA, the House is requiring the Senate to take the lead in passing this legislation, and if so, the Blue Dogs, or Corporate Democrats in the House will be rendered non-essential. And the Democratic Leadership Team in the Senate feels that they have the requisite 60 votes to pass this legislation that benefits the hard working employees residing on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
Therefore, the Chicano Veterans Organization endorses the Employee Free Choice Act and does so, heartily.
The Policy Advisory Board--March 11, 2009
The Fair Use Content Provisions are being applied!
From the web site of Talking Points Memo Dot Com:
Show Us the Money: Iraq Veterans React to the VA Budget
By Paul Rieckhoff - March 10, 2009, 9:53AM
A few weeks ago, the White House unveiled its budget with the fanfare and media blitz fit for a coronation. While the big proposals on climate change and health care took center stage in the dog-and-pony show, the budget also included an outline of funding for every veterans' hospital and clinic nationwide.
So what did team IAVA think of Obama's plan for veterans?
Overall, the President seems to have put his money where his mouth is. The top line number for veterans' discretionary funding is about $1.2 billion higher than the amount recommended by leading veterans' organizations, including IAVA. The budget plans increase VA funding by $25 billion over five years. That's a real victory.
Of course, the entire annual veterans' budget is still less than we've given AIG since September - but I'll put that aside for a moment, and get to the real policy. Despite his skills on the basketball court, Obama's budget is still not a slam dunk for veterans.
First, Obama hasn't opened up VA health care coverage to every veteran. This is a major misstep. In this economy, as veterans across the country lose their jobs and with it their health insurance, they should be able to turn to the VA for care. But the Administration only plans to bring about 500,000 moderate-income veterans into VA health care by 2013. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 1.8 million veterans who lack health insurance, and it doesn't even include all of the 565,000 veterans who have been denied VA care since 2003. Every single veteran signed the dotted line to serve their country, and each and every one of them should be eligible for VA health care.
Just as important, new veterans are disappointed that the President has not opted to include advance appropriations for the VA in his budget proposal. Advance appropriations doesn't cost any additional money, it just gives VA hospitals and clinics advance notice of the funding they will receive the following year. Right now, VA hospitals have no way of knowing what their budget will be next year. When the budget is passed late (and it usually is), hospitals have to make hard choices about their funding - and that means rationed care for veterans. Advance appropriations is a common-sense solution that Obama supported as a candidate, and he should have been out in front on this issue. This campaign promise got pushed to the side, and nobody in America seemed to notice.
Luckily for veterans, we've got some great allies in Congress - led by Senator Akaka and Representative Filner -- who are moving advance appropriations forward. And while we may not see Rahm Emanuel and Rush Limbaugh sitting down to tea anytime soon, we have seen great support from both sides of the aisle for advance appropriations. IAVA joined these lawmakers and others at a press conference a few weeks ago to mark the introduction of advance appropriations legislation, and we'll be fighting every step of the way to get that bill passed this year.
To help get advance appropriations moving forward, I'm going to be testifying today before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And I'm going to tell them just what I told you - Obama's budget is a good start, but it's up to Congress to close the deal for veterans. Interested in hearing how Congress responds? You can watch video of the testimony here.
When it comes to how the politicians spend our money, the devil is always in the details. It'll be months before we see the finished product on this budget. There have been rumors of new fees and premiums veterans will have to pay to get health care. That's not only bad policy, it's bad politics, because every veterans group in the country will oppose it vigorously. I can't believe the Obama Administration would make that kind of rookie mistake when it comes to supporting our veterans. But I can tell you one thing now - if Congress or the Administration think they can write billion dollar checks for Wall Street but nickel-and-dime our veterans, they've got another thing coming.
Crossposted at IAVA.org.
Jaango--posted on March 11, 2009
___________
Our Perspective:
Given our wealth of Shared Experiences and after our discharge from the military, our view is predicated on our history for being the Privates, Corporals and Sergeants. Thus, we took advantage of our educational opportunities, attended our respective colleges and universities, and subsequently, achieved our formal educational credentials.
Today, most of us are small business owners/consultants, and our experiences within the Latin America Region, just means that we are appropriately assimilated and ensconced in the language and the culture. Moreover, in our worldview, we tend to be somewhat eccentric and idiosyncratic in our view for understanding the usual sublime and regressiveness found in American history.
Take, for example, many substantive historians, practicing their social, political and economic behaviors, have attached themselves to the mistaken belief that this history, from 1607 to 1965, has given America its gravitas. Consequently, 1965 is personified as the Lyndon Johnson Era, and the Great Society brought about the demise of America. Thusly, the Great Society created a wealth of ‘self-indulgence’ and ‘elitism’ that continues to exist today. Not so of course, but America’s practitioners for wrong-headedness, have nary a concern for “unassailable” facts and have proven themselves, consistently incorrect, as demonstrated by our current economic meltdown.
In contrast, our view of history is one for recognizing that prior to 1607, Big Mama Good posited her Basic Premise for “We are…” and today, we understand and we will continue to advocate for the First Iteration of, “We are…all of one heart!”
And we will continue to advocate for our brand of Egalitarianism. We can do no less.
Our Policy Advisory Board:
- Mr. Bill Light, Arizona, Manufacturing/Business Consultant, and non-Veteran.
- Mr. Antonio De La Cruz, Texas, graduate degree in Business, and Army.
- Dr. Don Hoover, California, post-graduate degree in Business, and Navy.
- Mr. Joe Gonzales, Florida, graduate degree in Education, and Navy.
- Mr. Charles Perry, Illinois, degree in Computer Science, and Army.
- Mr. Jim Gonzales, Arizona, graduate degree in Business, and Air Force.
__________