Obama to issue executive order, ends the ‘Leave it to Beaver’ era

[spanone]

President Obama on Monday will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide paid sick leave, a small but resonant stride in the administration’s larger push to humanize some aspects of the American labor market.

Obama promoted the move during a Labor Day trip to Boston, where the president joined union leaders at a rally and breakfast. He also renewed his call on Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act, which would provide sick leave to most of the private sector. That legislation would end America’s dubious distinction as the only industrialized country on Earth without a mandatory safety net for workers who need to care for themselves or others.

Monday’s executive order will also allow workers to take paid time off to recover from domestic violence, sexual assault or deal with issues related stalking. The move is the latest in a series of executive actions that the president has used to rewrite the rules of the workplace.

Obama has raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for companies in contract with the federal government. He’s bolstered overtime pay protections for all private sector workers. Under the Obama administration all federal employees are also guaranteed up to six weeks of paid paternity or maternity leave.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-issue-executive-order-ends-the-leave-it-beaver-era

[Starry Messenger]

1. K&R

[bigwillq]

2. Cool.

[Facility Inspector]

3. Do we still have a thriving manufacturing base,

single income households, expanding middle class, pensions, strong Union representation, 90% taxation on the rich, a plan to go to the moon, etc?

Someone told me life was different for the working and middle classes in the 1950s (Leave it to Beaver era).

Is someone revisionizing history or something?

[spanone]

8. no, someone is helping workers. something the gop would never dream of.

[Facility Inspector]

9. Federal workers/subs

or every US worker?

[spanone]

11. he's only boss of federal workers...he's setting a good example for other employers to follow.

[CreekDog]

36. Let's cut to the chase: are you opposing what Obama did?

Just this issue, yes or no, should Obama have done this or not?

[Facility Inspector]

37. Not everything is an either/or

If you're looking for conflict, search elsewhere.

[CreekDog]

39. To the contrary, if you'd just say that you support what he did

and that it should be done for all other workers ASAP, then that would show how united we are.

but if you're saying he shouldn't have done this because it didn't give it to all workers...

[Facility Inspector]

40. I read up on your post history

I see what you're trying to do.

No sale here.

Off to ignore with you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. LOL ... That Poster?!? ...

Posts "Not Enough" stuff about precedent making stuff the Democratic President did, on a Democratic message board, and when challenged accuses everyone else of just looking for a fight.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Thriving manufacturing base? Yes, in fact

manufacturing is increasingly automated and requires fewer people to produce the same amount of things; maufacturing has shifted from domestic appliances and passenger vehicles (although those are still made in the USA, as well) to heavy equipment, aerospace, and medical technology.

And single income households? I hope you're not serious. Single-income households are a relic of the era before women were represented in the workforce; I don't think anyone who considers themselves "liberal" could possibly see a return to 1950's era gender roles as a good or positive thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. ^^^ This ^^^ ...

But, particularly, this:

I don't think anyone who considers themselves "liberal" could possibly see a return to 1950's era gender roles as a good or positive thing.

MUST ... MAINTAIN ... (white) MALE ... HEGEMONY!

[gratuitous]

4. Since the so-called free market won't act

It's up to all of us, through our voice in the government, to enact rules and laws that force employers to provide the bare minimum consideration for the workers who make their companies profitable.

[deutsey]

61. The "invisible hand of the market"

is too busy slapping us around and beating us down to help.

[spanone]

6. yea sure it is....bwahahahahaaaa

[IDemo]

7. Now who can argue with that?

[czarjak]

59. Stop making sense...

[Hekate]

21. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. Not if you work for a Federal contractor FACT

[yuiyoshida]

25. ...

[Hydra]

10. We're finally getting progress

And Bernie can do a lot of things like this when he's in office as well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. And so can President Hillary Clinton...

[Hydra]

13. Sure, but will she?

She seems happy with things the way they are in the economy. Status Quo FTW!

[Blue_Adept]

16. Many see her as just extending Obama's term to a third one

So which is it? She'd either do what he does or doesn't do what he does?

[Hydra]

17. IMO, It would be an extention of Poppy Bush's policies

Which we've had now for an unbroken 35 years now. The DLC/Bushco alliance has been stunningly lucrative for them, and disastrous for the rest of us, and the world in general.

[SCantiGOP]

26. Whereas Sanders might be an extension of

George McGovern's administration.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. LOL ... Behave! ...

But I was thinking "an extension of Dennis Kucinich's administration." (At least, McGovern made it through the Democratic Primaries)

[Hortensis]

44. Come on. Surely, the difference is tremendous? IMO the question is how successful she will be, not

if she's really a pragmatic liberal. Remember, this is a woman who turned her back on money to specialize in family law and women's and children's rights -- a field, then and now, seen as a joke and below consideration by most attorneys. She hasn't changed at the core.

[Hydra]

58. Then why didn't she put those policies out first and foremost?

And why are she and Bill basically adopted family of Poppy Bush now?

There's no clear answer as to whether Hillary was ever in her heart the champion of normal people...but at this point, She and Bill have invested their lives into serving the needs of the 1% so that their descendants will always be a part of that "club."

I can't fault them for it- it will be a matter of survival in a few years. I don't have to cave to the inevitable though.

[uponit7771]

33. they hate Obama

[AlbertCat]

47. Many see her as just extending Obama's term to a third one

And many more do not.


As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anything that suggests such a "continuation" is expected.... from any camp....

Unless you mean corporatism.

[retrowire]

14. i wasnt aware we were already calling her president.

must be that entitlement complex Hillary and her supporters seem to have.

[NYC Liberal]

19. Really? The poster being replied to stated "when Bernie is president".

[retrowire]

22. yeah! "when he's president"

that's optimistic outlook.

op didn't call him President Bernie.

lmao reading comprehension is your friend.

[NYC Liberal]

32. Um, it's the same thing.

"When he's president" implies Sanders is guaranteed the presidency.

[retrowire]

35. Well let's put on our reading caps then.

Context is key in understanding words and sentences. Let's examine the entire sentence in question.

"can do a lot of things like this when he's in office as well."

The first context of this being a NON absolute sentence is the word "can" The word can is a word that may infer possibility. If it were the word "will" then we'd have a more absolute statement.

Now let's look at the end of the sentence. There are 2 words here! "as well" In this context, the poster is stating that Bernie could also do things just as Hillary could do in office. That wording neither excludes the possibility of Hillary becoming president, nor does it absolutely state that Bernie will be president.

In the end, the statement this poster made is not an absolute statement that Bernie will be president. In it's entirety, it simply means "Bernie could do things when he gets to the presidency too." It's not exclusive or absolute.

[pintobean]

15. A lot more people were protected during "the Leave it to Beaver era"

compared to today.

[Politicub]

18. Unions may have been peachy keen back then

but life was generally harder for you if you were a single woman, minority or gay.

[pintobean]

20. I am aware of that. My point stands.

[whathehell]

31. Those "peachy keen" unions generated the stable, prosperous economy that encourages,

some would argue, allowed, the social justice movements you allude to. It's no accident that the Civil Rights

movement, the women's and gay rights movements ALL started in earnest during the 60's and 70's, a time of

widespread economic prosperity and organized labor played a huge part in that. History shows that broadly shared

prosperity fosters liberal societies, while economic hardship for the masses generally precedes and accompanies right wing policies.

[TygrBright]

54. Those "peachy keen" Unions of that era also did their damndest to keep women out.

And minorities.

And, in some unions, anyone who wasn't a relative of someone who was already in the Union.

Trying to get an apprenticeship in the Carpenters in 1972, if you had a vagina, was (to say the least) a harrowing experience.

And if you achieved it, it was even worse. Why yes, they DID break open your locker and piss in your steel-toed boots. And when you asked the Shop Steward for help, you DID get told that "being nicer to the guys" (dirty gesture included) might be a good idea.

I don't imagine persons with brown skin had it any easier than persons with vaginas.

The problem was that once they achieved a certain level of power and influence in the economic marketplace, Unions forgot about pulling anyone else up the ladder and concentrated on consolidating their gains for the ones already there. Which entailed a certain amount of knocking others off when they tried to get on.

Not to mention corruption and dirty games in the political arenas.

I am actually a strong Union supporter, but I recognize the mistakes of the past and I don't think that "going back to the way it was" is the answer for today.

Unions, to resurge in today's economy, need to become different types of institution with a different agenda, beyond just muscling their way to the table to play the game as it is with the Oligarchy as it is. That's a losing strategy long-term AND short-term.

informatively,
Bright

[Lonusca]

55. Fantastic post. nt

[whathehell]

57. Yeah..Like that "Peachy Keen" world in which they emerged, they weren't perfect..

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Like the humans who create them, every movement and societal institution on earth, is flawed...You can't expect

an institution began 70 or 100 years ago to reflect the values of today.

Like the rest of society, unions today are far more.diverse and inclusive.

That being said, I couldn't help but note your citing the unions of yesterday as "doing their damndest to keep women out".

I was a woman union member over forty years ago, and had none of the problems you mentioned.

Informatively,
Whathell

[appalachiablue]

60. So we and other advanced nations should not have had labor unions, b/c many didn't include

important groups. Interesting. Why can't people just say they're anti union, straight up, I wonder.

[whathehell]

62. No,.that wasn't an impressive argument.I don't think the poster understood the point

which is NOT that unions are perfect, but that they are good and at the RIGHT of workers

to organize so.that they may negotiate their salaries and working conditions instead of having

them indicated to them by the owners.

[Recursion]

27. Not many of them were black or female or gay (nt)

[annabanana]

28. "as we lost ourselves a link in the chain"

[WinkyDink]

51. I don't think you can make any such claims, esp. about gays in unions (did they wear a sign?).

[Recursion]

52. Blacks "passed" too

That's not a new calculus.

[MADem]

34. Not women, though, who were discriminated against on the basis

of age and gender, couldn't sign contracts without their husbands, weren't allowed their own line of credit if married...

Tell us about those 'good old days'....

Women--half the population--had no protections at all in the fifties. They could be fired because a man "needed the job" more than they did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Are you seeing a common argument thread running through these ...

"peachy keen, back in day the day" posts?

I smell longing for the good ole days when white men were secure (read: ruled the workplace and the home AKA bedroom)

[MADem]

48. Sure enough!

It was an "orderly" life back then. Everyone "knew their place."

Hmmm!

[Recursion]

53. I keep coming back to this

Some of the party -- literally -- cannot understand why there is pushback on returning the economy to the 1950s.

This should be Borowitz.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. It's a wonder they aren't more sympathetic to the southern Confederate Flag position ...

It's the same damned argument!

[coyote]

29. It's a nice bone but

Not nearly enough.

[MADem]

49. You want more? Get off those best intentions and WRITE TO CONGRESS.

He gave you what he could, to the limit of his executive order ability.

You want more bones--the full cut of meat? You're going to have to get that from the legislature.

Start with the HOUSE--where appropriations begin.

[Delmette]

30. Now extend this to state contracts

State contracts that use over 50% Federal funding should also be required to match sick leave and all Federal hiring practices. Think of all the temp services and non profits that could fall under thsee requiremnts.

[MADem]

50. You need your governor--and the federal legislature--for that.

That's outside Obama's wheelhouse, at least until the legislation hits his desk and he might sign it.

Start with Boehner...and good luck.

[rhett o rick]

38. He raise the min wage for a handfull of contractors to a whopping $10.10 per hour.

What a slap in the face to labor.

[AlbertCat]

45. We already have the "Paid Religious Leave"