Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

John Roberts Ain't What You Think He Is

The Anti-Union Court

by DAVID MACARAY

People who interpret Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote not to overturn “Obamacare” as evidence that this enigmatic Justice may, in fact, be more “liberal” than previously thought, need to go back and rethink their position.  Indeed, Roberts and his Court brethren are just as stubbornly pro-business and anti-union as they ever were.

Last month’s ruling in Knox vs. the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) removed all doubt.  In a decision that startled many observers (including Justices Breyer and Kagan), the Court ruled that non-union members should be required to “opt-in” (rather than “opt-out”) before their dues could be used for political purposes.  In this, the Court not only exceeded its own jurisdiction, but demonstrated that it is a nest of anti-union demagogues.

The original issue in Knox vs. the SEIU was whether a union must inform its non-members (in an agency shop, “free riders” receive the same wages and benefits as union members, even if they’re too gutless, selfish or narrow-minded to join) that a surcharge was going to be levied to raise money to defeat two anti-union ballot measures.  The court ruled that these non-members should have been notified of the surcharge in order to be given an opportunity to “opt-out” if they so chose.

As far as it goes, that’s probably a fair ruling.  If not entirely “fair,” then at least legal, in that it’s in accordance with a 1986 Supreme Court decision allowing non-members to withhold that part of their dues earmarked for political purposes.  Although these “free riders” are not permitted to withhold regular monthly dues—money used to pay for the collective bargaining that provides them with the decent wages and benefits they enjoy—they may legally stop that money from being used for other purposes.  So be it.

But the Roberts Court took it to a whole other level.  Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., declared that these non-members should not only be given advance notice of any surcharge, they should, in fact, be given the choice to “opt-in,” rather than “opt-out.”  In other words, they should have to volunteer to pay instead of requesting not to pay, a decision that radically alters the arrangement.

What was so outrageous about Alito’s opinion was that it far exceeded what the plaintiff himself was even asking for.  Knox wasn’t suggesting that the whole process be flip-flopped or jettisoned; rather, all he wanted was to be notified in advance of a surcharge, so he could opt-out of it.  It was Justice Alito who expanded the decision dramatically.

For years, companies have tried to get abstentions counted as “nays” in union certification elections.  You had your Yes votes, you had your No votes, and you had your abstentions.  Not surprisingly, management wanted to count abstentions as automatic No votes (unless the employees “opted-in”).  And that’s more or less what the Roberts Court went and did with this decision.

It’s bad enough allowing freeloaders to reap the benefits of a union shop without having to join up, but the Supreme Court made it worse.  Whereas unions typically assess monthly dues unless a non-member formally opts-out, the Roberts Court told America’s unions that they can’t collect those dues unless the non-member formally opts-in.  Whatever one’s definition of “anti-union,” the Roberts’ Court clearly conforms to it.

DAVID MACARAY, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor”), was a former union rep.   He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net