Views in brief
Secret ballots are red herring with EFCA
BRAD MAXWELL'S letter on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is a very good example of the smokescreen that right-wing politicians blow in our faces on the issue ("Secrecy needed for Employee Free Choice").
As a quick aside, Minnesota Rep. John Kline voted against requiring FISA warrants for domestic wiretaps and for removing the need for FISA warrants on wiretaps abroad. Any pronouncements he makes on "protecting secrecy" or "privacy" are hypocrisy of the worst sort.
What Brad may be unaware of (and Kline surely chooses to ignore) is that under both current law and EFCA, the secret ballot election only comes into use after a card-check process has been completed and certified. So it's already clear to the workers who signed a card and who refused.
The problem under current law is that an employer can demand a secret ballot election no matter what the results of the card check. Even if 100 percent of the workforce signs, the employer can still demand a secret ballot. So a potential tool for democratic decision-making becomes a delaying tactic where the bosses have the opportunity to actively grind down support for a union among its employees.
EFCA would restrict the use of the secret ballot only to cases where 30-50 percent of the workforce signs a card. Anything above 50 percent plus one results in automatic certification of the union. This is actually nothing new--it's the very process used to decertify unions in the workplace. Why should it be harder to certify a union than it is to decertify it?
The secret ballot is an important and useful tool under the right circumstances. But when it's clear that it's not working, we've got to change things so it does.
Jeff Skinner, from the Internet
The oppression of the Quebecois
BONNIE FROM Canada writes that Quebec is not oppressed, merely "marginalized" ("Quebec is not oppressed"). The word "oppression," she maintains, should be reserved for extreme instances such as those in Palestine and apartheid South Africa. She even claims that native people in Canada "don't use such strong language" about "injustices to them in our history."
Few will share any doubts about the oppressed status of Native Americans anywhere on this continent. The position of the Quebecois, however, is little understood in the U.S.
Quebec is the only Canadian province incorporated by conquest. Since that conquest, discrimination and resistance have been constants. Tanks were used against the nationalist movement as recently as 1970. English-only laws, differential access to jobs and schools, and racist hostility have faced the French-speaking population across the country. Those who suffer the real-life consequences of these practices, regardless of historical comparisons, may justifiably speak of their oppression.
Nor is it accurate to state, as Bonnie does, that oppressed people always need or want separation. Mexican immigrants in the U.S. southwest are brutally oppressed by deadly border policy and harsh working conditions, sometimes bordering on slavery. The fact that there is no substantial support among them for national independence does not negate their oppression.
Independence, autonomy, affirmative action, language rights and reparations are only a few different remedies for oppression. Which ones an oppressed people desires should be their freely self-determined choice.
Socialists should support the right to make that choice, without necessarily advocating any of them. That said, Bonnie's own statistic about 33 percent of Quebecois supporting the radical step of outright independence from Canada suggests a deep recognition of their own oppression.
Avery Wear, San Diego
Time to tax New York's rich
OVER THE holidays, Gov. David Paterson of New York appeared on the Bill Moyers show, attempting to defend his massive budget cut proposals.
In answer to Moyers asking him why he can't just raise taxes on the rich, Paterson replied that doing so would risk having the rich move from the state. Later, Paterson appeared exasperated, pleading with those opposing the budget cuts to "just tell me where to get the money from."
I have an idea, Governor: From the rich! It's really very simple: If you can't afford something, you must raise income, cut expenses or both. In this case, Governor Paterson (not unlike many governors and mayors faced with similar situations all across the U.S.) is only proposing cutting "expenses."
Medical coverage for the poor? Cut it. Funding for schools? Cut it. There's almost no social program benefiting the working class that's not on the chopping block. Paterson is even proposing cutting funding for the office that investigates elder abuse. Yes, Mr. Governor, that's so much better than raising taxes on the rich.
And is there any science to Governor Paterson's claims that raising taxes causes the rich to flee from the state? I seriously doubt it (and challenge the governor to present it), since the rich make their money, especially in New York, because of the location of their jobs (i.e., Wall Street).
Moreover, raising taxes on the rich and corporations by a meager 2-3 percent would provide more than enough money to keep spending levels at their current levels. But since Governor Paterson and his legislative pals are either millionaires or backed by them, it's going to take people hitting the streets, sitting in at their offices and otherwise organizing fightbacks to force them to retract those cuts.
David Bliven, Briarwood, N.Y.
Credit to the Germans who opposed Hitler
I'M SURPRISED that a writer of Joe Allen's stature, in his review of Valkyrie, could claim that the German officers who tried to kill Hitler "were a lot like (him)" ("The good Germans?").
Granted, none of them were revolutionary socialists, although there were a number of Social Democrats and trade unionists involved in the conspiracy (who are not depicted or even alluded to in the movie). Granted, many of them (with the exception of Stauffenberg) were conservative nationalists and/or monarchists, if not, downright right-wing reactionaries.
Yet none of the figures depicted in the film can be compared to the likes of Hitler, Himmler or the other mass murderers running Nazi Germany...or the no-less bloody rulers of the U.S. or the UK.
In fact, many of them, especially those around Admiral Canaris in Abwehr (another conspirator not portrayed, although his second in command, General Oster, is mentioned early on in the film) helped many Jews to escape the clutches of the Nazis. Both Stauffenberg and Treskow not only spoke out many times against the atrocities on the Eastern Front, but actually tried to stop them.
That may not make them socialists, or even democrats, but it certainly doesn't make them Nazis. Indeed, they were probably far more moral men than the military (or civilian) leaders of the imperialist "democracies," whether it be in the Second World War or in the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars.
Allen also cherry-picks quotes to show what unsavory characters Beck and the Stauffenberg brothers really were. Only these quotes come from the early days of the Third Reich, when Hitler's crimes were known only to left-wing opponents of his regime. Not that this excuses them one bit, but Beck could also be quoted from the late 1930s, when he resigned from the high command in protest against Hitler's war plans, and said that his duty to his conscience came before his duty to the state.
Likewise, there are plenty of quotes from Treskow and Stauffenberg, both of whom become disgusted with the Nazis early on, that show their hatred of the Hitler regime, and how they evolved in the struggle against it. Stauffenberg, in particular, tried to broaden the base of the opposition and was far closer to the Social Democrats than to right-wingers like Goerdeler, who he's constantly depicted at odds with in the film.
Just for the record, most of the inner circle of conspirators, whatever their motives, were actively opposing the regime from the late 1930s onward, including at the height of Hitler's popularity and military triumphs in the early stages of Second World War. While that made it more difficult for them to take decisive action before they finally did, it shouldn't nullify what they were actually doing.
M.N. Roy, New York City
Marching for Gaza in Colorado
REGARDING "RAISING our voices for Gaza": I want to remind you not to forget about the rallies and protests going on in the streets of Boulder, Colo., and Denver.
We don't get 20,000, but we are still passionate people who are fighting as hard as we can to end this (and other) atrocities.
Ryan, Boulder, Colo.
