Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

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….)

pp1

or
cp-store

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

The Irony of Ironies

Supreme Court’s Latest Anti-Union Decision

by DAVID MACARAY

Organized labor got an understandable scare when the Supreme Court, on June 30, in yet another 5-4 decision, ruled (in Harris vs. Quinn) that home healthcare employees can’t be forced to pay union dues, even if they have benefited from union representation. No surprise that those comprising the majority were Justices Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts and Thomas. The Gang of Five.

However, what worries organized labor most—what has put them on alert—isn’t the Harris vs. Quinn decision so much as the potential snowball effect it may have on the landmark Abrood vs. Detroit Board of Education decision (1977), a ruling which maintained that “fair share” requirements were constitutional. But that was way back in 1977, when unions were still recognized as vitally important social-economic institutions.

Alas, things have changed. There is now a predatory anti-union movement loose upon the land, one that is going around telling working folks that they deserve a free ride. These anti-union fiends are telling workers who voluntarily hired into union shops (because of the superior wages, benefits and working conditions) that they don’t have to pay their fair share—that they don’t have to pay dues to the very union who fought to get them these superior wages and benefits.

Nutty as that sounds, these anti-union fanatics have not only tried to make this a bogus First Amendment issue, they have, in fact, managed to get some intelligent people to listen to them, including the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. Of course, one can guess what organized labor’s position is on this issue. Their position is defined by a bedrock adherence to a sense of fair play.

All one need do is look at the numbers. With barely 11-percent of all jobs in the U.S. being unionized, a non-union job is incredibly easy to find. You throw a rock and you’ll hit a non-union job. Accordingly, people who, for whatever philosophical reason, are opposed to unions will have more than enough jobs to choose from. In fact, with so few union jobs out there, they will be hard-pressed to find one that is unionized.

But if these philosophically opposed Americans voluntarily choose a union job over a non-union job (because union jobs across the board—industry to industry, shop to shop—offer better wages, benefits and working conditions), it’s only fair they be asked to pay their share of the freight. Let’s be honest here. Not only would those wages and bennies not be available if it weren’t for the union, they were the sole reason why they chose a union job over a non-union job.

Yet, in a world seemingly turned upside down, these people are being told otherwise. They are being told that, despite the benefits their labor union was able to negotiate, the U.S. Constitution dictates that these workers don’t have to pay their fair share. Basically, they’re being told that the U.S. Constitution has a built-in “non-accountability” clause that none of us ever heard of, not until Ronald Reagan was elected president.

Of course, this issue is dripping with irony. The Republicans have a history of opposing social welfare (food stamps, stipends, government subsidies), arguing that such programs only encourage deadbeats. Yet, irony of ironies, here they are urging people to “go on welfare” by burying their snouts in the union trough. Idea for James Cameron’s next movie: “Terminator 4: Rise of the Freeloaders.”

David Macaray is a labor columnist and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor, 2nd Edition). dmacaray@earthlink.net