The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) organized protests in Maryland at the homes of several bank executives, along with follow-up rallies in Washington, D.C., at bank branches and offices.
The events went largelyuncovered by the Washington Post, whichled Post ombud Andrew Alexander(5/29/10) to wonder why the paper missed a major labor story that was covered by Mother Jones (5/16/10) andthe Nation (5/20/10), among others.
The story has been getting a lot of attention from right-wing activists, though, whoarearguing that aprotest outside a banker’s homeis anoutrageous infringement on someone’s private life. A more important point is whether the Post is paying attention to labor activism:
But Huffington Post reporter Arthur Delaney said he learned of the protests from SEIU sources, which raises the question of whether the [Washington] Post is sufficiently plugged into the nation’s most politically active labor organization.
That’s a good point.
Unfortunately, Alexander’s thoughts about what coverage of union activism should look like is a little, well, anti-union:
There were numerous ways the Post could have gotten back in the game on the story. For example, how did Chevy Chase neighbors react? Did protesters break trespass laws? When does First Amendment expression infringe on residential privacy? Does President Obama, who enjoyed SEIU electoral support, sanction these types of protests? And is a blitz on private residences a new protest tactic?
I don’t know–maybe a more important question than what Obama thinks of the protests mightbe,”What were they protesting?”
Do corporations have a duty to their country in these tough times? The media talks about joblessness and what workers are doing to find new jobs. They talk about the government working on job bills. But no one talks about corporate responsibility to hire, or at least not fire and down size more workers.
There has not been ONE corporation that has said they will hire people now to help the country and put patriotism ahead of profits. Corporate America has turned its back on it’s country in its time of need. And the media that depends on advertising or corporate sponsors, seems hesitant to talk about it. This is far from fair or balanced.
Why should workers buy the products of companies that put workers out of business?
Thanks Tom Hendricks – very well put – we need corporations to help by hiring, not firing. The only reason for firing their employers and putting more burdens on those that are left is the fact that CEO’s can make MORE money, including undeserved bonuses. If a middle management worker made mistakes, they wouldn’t get a bonus, they would be first reprimanded and probably fired if it didn’t improve. CEO’s just keep on taking, but for how long? If there is no one out in the work force buying your products, then where will they be? Yes it is good to make a profit but at a cost to your employees can not afford decent housing and must cut corners, then the CEO’s should also make adjustments downward. In the end, all will benefit.
We should close all the tax loopholes that encourage shipping jobs overseas, and sanction companies like Whirlpool who take bailout money and send the jobs overseas anyway. Furthermore, if we slap an exponential fine on companies caught twice hiring undocumented workers, that will free up jobs for citizens and those here legally.
Here’s the way to put U.S. to work. I have 2 pages of sources
THE MIRACLE PAPER PLANT
By Emily Horswill
http://emilyhorswill.blogspot.com/2007/10/miracle-paper-plant.html
The Washington Post, yapping for more anti-labor stories, shows it’s true anti-worker bias and Republican boot-licking tendencies.The Washington Post has turned itself into a rag, the likes of The New York Post.
Hard to believe that the WAPO broke to the Watergate story about Republican crime! Also hard to believe the NYT was the first to publish the Pentagon Papers!
Both newspapers today are mere shadows of their former selves. Government mouthpieces!