Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
FDR’s Labor Day Plea Resonates Today
On the eve of Labor Day in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned in his “Fireside Chat” of a potentially dangerous surge in class divisions if more was not done to support ordinary workers.
For FDR, providing the opportunity to labor for a “decent and constantly rising standard of living” was fundamental to a healthy democracy.
“The Fourth of July commemorates our political freedom,” he said. “Labor Day symbolizes our determination to achieve an economic freedom for the average man which will give his political freedom reality.”
This year, our economy is similar to 1936 in at least one way. A rebound from crisis is evident in many indicators — except those most important to working families. When FDR delivered that radio address, unemployment was down from the peak of the Great Depression but still a painful 17 percent.
Our current jobless recovery is even more unfair by one particular measure: paychecks for the guys at the top of the corporate ladder. After adjusting for inflation, CEO pay at the top 50 U.S. companies was eight times higher in 2009 than it was in 1936.
What’s even more outrageous is that the executives who are cutting the most jobs are also getting the biggest payouts. According to a new report by my organization, the Institute for Policy Studies, CEOs of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the crisis took home nearly $12 million on average in 2009. That’s 42 percent more than the average for CEOs of S&P 500 firms as a whole.
Each of the 50 firms surveyed cut at least 3,000 jobs between November 2008 and April 2010. Seventy-two percent of the companies announced mass layoffs at a time when they were earning profits.
These numbers all reflect a broader trend in Great Recession-era Corporate America: CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks.
William Weldon of Johnson & Johnson, for example, announced 8,900 job cuts in 2009. His compensation package that year was so large — $25.6 million — that it could have covered the cost of nine weeks of average unemployment benefits for all the workers he fired.
Many investors would point to the pharmaceutical company’s $12.3 billion in profits last year as proof that Weldon is worth every penny. But such mass layoffs tend to have serious long-term costs, not just for workers who lose their jobs, but also for the corporations that fire them.
Beyond the immediate blow to morale for remaining employees, companies that slash their workforces often face higher costs down the road related to hiring and training new employees. A University of Colorado survey of S&P 500 firms over nearly two decades found no evidence that downsizing leads to increased returns on assets.
Seventy-four years ago, Roosevelt ended his Labor Day address by declaring that the needs of all American workers “are one in building an orderly economic democracy in which all can profit and in which all can be secure from the kind of faulty economic direction which brought us to the brink of common ruin.”
Roosevelt’s pro-worker policies helped lay the foundation for several stable decades with relatively narrow income gaps during the post-World War II period. As we struggle to recover from the worst crisis since FDR’s day, let’s put the focus back on what’s good for working families. The Great Recession will only be over when the nation is back to work.


33 Comments so far
Show All==On the eve of Labor Day in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned in his “Fireside Chat” of a potentially dangerous surge in class divisions if more was not done to support ordinary workers.
For FDR, providing the opportunity to labor for a “decent and constantly rising standard of living” was fundamental to a healthy democracy.==
But, for this POV Franklin Roosevelt was being tarred nightly on national radio as "a Communist" by the Detroit radio priest, Father Coughlin. His chances of reelection had risen from 50 to about 60% since June. But a ship arrives from Rome carrying Vatican Secretary of State Eugene Cardinal Pacelli - who has a dead lock on the next papacy. Joe Kennedy hires a DC2 to fly Pacelli to Detroit and gag the radio priest, then on to each stronghold of Catholic population to undo the last 3 years' radio campaign. Do you detect the faint smell of a =protection racket=?
Following election day 1936, Joe is promised the reward of appointment to the Court of St. James's. Pacelli expected the appointment of a full ambassador to the Vatican and nearly went ballistic when he learned he was only getting a Personal Envoy from the President. Spellman cringed.
Note that America now has a "chicken in every pot" - but the bird never felt the sun upon its back.
Are you saying the priest was silenced by the church? I imagine he could have left them if he has such a popular show...
Father Coughlin (originally from Toronto) was silenced by the Vatican Secretary of State, in person, with Bishop Spellman present.
But my historical wager is that this was an act. I'm guessing this was probably a =sting operation= orchestrated by Spelly from day one when Coughlin went on the air to begin calling FDR a Communist. By August 1936 very few Catholics would have voted for FDR. In 2 months visiting, Sec. Pacelli flipped that case 180 degrees. Joe Kennedy footed the entire bill. And it was Rose Kennedy who spoke up circa 4 Nov at Hyde Park and asked that her husband be appointed ambassador to Great Britain. See: =Times to Remember= by Rose.
As deep deep background, when FDR was Assistant Sec. of the Navy during WW One, he busted the balls of priest Francis Spellman who desperately wanted to be a U.S. Navy Chaplain - - but was one inch too short to meet the physical requirements. Spelly had letters of support sent from flag rank Catholics, which ignited Roosevelt's fuse. I suspect Francis literally cried when his chaplain commission was denied; he'd already had two uniforms tailored. Francis resolved one day to have FDR's balls cupped in his hand. And Spellman did it. History underestimates both him and the importance to the world today due to his sidekick friendship with Eugenio Pacelli, the TRUE Person of the 20th Century (vs. Albert Einstein).
Gracias, a very interesting tale.
> This year, our economy is similar to 1936
> in at least one way. A rebound from crisis
> is evident in many indicators — except those
> most important to working families."
The 1936 rebound was a rebound for the working class but today's "rebound" is limited to the markets. People living paycheck to paycheck aren't getting any progress.
The comparison of today's economy to the one in Roosevelt's time also neglects mentioning the fact that distorting the employment numbers has been practiced by the Labor Dept since Clinton unlike FDR's time so our situation could be much worse than theirs and we wouldn't know it. Another neglected fact is that Obama does not support pro-worker policies, labor unions nowadays bend to corporate power, labor leaders keep raising the union fees with less protections and help for the rank and file, and labor leaders keep pushing for illegal immigrants to come in and depress everyone's wages and put more Americans out of work.
The "distorting of employment numbers" actually began under Reagan when the Labor department decided that those who have been unemployed for more than six months should no longer be counted, a standard pulled completely out of someone's ass.
q
By some measures-if you include the people who have given up looking for work, the 99ers, and myriads of people counted in other ways, the real unemployment figure is pretty close to 17%-just like in 1936.Roosevelt had spine and determination, and realized that he and the entire capitalist system were sitting on a powder keg if he and his administration didn't introduce worker-friendly policies. He went after the banksters, and said "make my day" when they tried to take him down.And he had other advantages: the country as a whole was not in debt-it was the world's second biggest creditor, after Britain, and it was not in thrall to the military industrial complex, and its leaders did not think of it as an 'Empire'.So Roosevelt had some room to try things out.Obama has neither the spine, nor the imagination, nor the cajones. And not much room, even if he did some of those things.
That was exactly what I was referring to and more. Don't forget underemployment too. It's much worse today than 1936.
That real unemployment figure of around 17% is in the good states! Those hit hard are over 20%. And just because there are a few states that are not broke and do not have high unemployment...averaging isn't going to make the folks there feel better.
Though you believe Mr. Obama is much more than I do with your flattering description of him, you are correct, its too late for him.
I am so sick and tired of liberals talking about FDR, and expecting Obama to be like FDR. Unions were far stronger then, and far more militant, than they are now. There were other parties on the left who got a decent amount of votes and people were active and involved, pushing government from bellow. FDR was elected on a relatively conservative platform first time around and was pushed to the left by working people. We didn't get things like social security because of FDR, working people pushed for social security, organized around similar policies and got what they worked for.
NO progressive force in the world, now or ever, has been without massive social movements pushing from bellow. Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution would die out without a push from bellow. In places like Bolivia there are protests now because the relatively radical government in Bolivia is not radical ENOUGH and has pursued pro-cyclical policies recently in response to the international economic downturn.
We have none of this in this country. The most active people now politically are on the right, they're relatively more affluent than the working people of FDR's day or, obviously, those in Venezuela and Bolivia now and they are for horribly failed, yet self serving economic policies. They talk about concepts, like socialism, they don't understand and could care less about have any knowledge of ideas or history that doesn't fit their irrational, illogical world view.
When collapse happens the strongest forces fill the vacuum. In this country, unlike countries in Latin America, that isn't mass social movements, alternative economic structures (like cooperatives) or forward thinking alternatives (like participatory budgeting and economics) or even unions. It is financial capital, right wing think tanks, right wing media and powerful groups of people who have monopolized the surplus that society has created for about the last 40 years. In other words, in the absense of mass social movements and real alternatives from the left, the future is bleak and the reality is long term stagnation. The right's policies are failures, decades long failures, and those in power aren't willing to break with these policies, or are even aware of alternatives to begin with.
We on the left have failed as far as organizing and educating working people, letting them know about more equitable, logical and more forward thinking alternatives that the left has created. We were handed a perfect situation as far as organizing working people towards this end since the start of the economic crisis, many economists (for example those at Monthly Review) have been pointing out the immense contradictions of capitalism, the financialization of the system and its implications. Other radical economists like Robin Hahnel have pointed to very logical alternatives and have articulated very logical critiques of not only capitalism, but markets themselves. We haven't drawn on this and working people are isolated, angry and don't understand the reasons for the economic collapse. Our failures are a big reason for this.
Rational comments like this and so many others I read on CD don’t seem to have much relevance to the realities of today’s politics. Sorry, but Sarah Anderson’s plea seems almost … well quaint and sentimental. Not that I disagree with her. It’s just that the nation has taken such a radical right turn that any discussions of the moral obligations we have toward one another are destined to ridicule. I mean can’t you just hear the Wall street buffoons laughing wildly at these ideas?
The Republicans and the Koch-funded Mad Tea Party rages on filling people with a psychotic passion for self-destructive policies, while the Wall St. Killer Elite continues to decry such arguments as Anderson makes as Pure Socialism (see Daniel Loeb’s rants).
Robert Reich offers a reasoned solutoion to the crisis in today’s NYT …
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?_r=1&hp
… but seriously, a global currency? A global bank? As Americas crawl deeper and deeper into themselves what chance do such ideas have?
It’s clear the Republicans will kick the Democrat’s asses in November. Why? Because every publication now says so. And so it shall be. Most agree they deserve it. But at what cost? Rand Paul? Sharon Angle? Joe Miller? Linda MacMahon” Carli Fiorini? These people are insane. How can we possibly let them get their hands on our government?
What will be left of our nation after they get through with it? Young voters will flock to various and sundry third parties in disillusionment but unless some leadership arises to focus their votes productively, their power will be dissipated.
Sorry. Did I say Leadership? If we had any we wouldn’t be in this mess.
I received a letter from my local Democratic Party flak who tells me I need to support the party because of all that Obama has accomplished in his short tenure. It’s a long list. As I read it I concede that much of it is impressive. So I wonder, why is he doing so poorly in the polls? Why are Democratic candidates more likely to ask Bill Clinton to campaign for them than Obama? Leadership. His "accomplishments" don't touch anyone.
Obama is a CEO, not a Leader.
It’s what the American public wants and needs. He inspired people in his election, people from all cultures and incomes and sides of the aisle. But there was no act 2. Once in office he failed to inspire, he refused to explain himself, he decided to make political deals instead of confronting the nation with his and our challenges.
It’s as if he believed that Legislative Accomplishments were all that mattered. What will matter in November is inspiration. Obama failed to inspire. (See FDR, JFK, RR, etc.)
Why don't you post that list of 'accomplishments'? As far as I'm concerned it's mostly stuff around the edges. Pretty much everything he inspired people with, he has turned his back on. I believe the 'accomplishments' are not what the people were hoping for and thus they are big-time disappointed and feel like they were played. That's why they will not turn out or vote Dem. Political choices today are between crazy people and cautious cowards - is it any wonder turnout is so low? Please tell that to your friend.
I will post it tomorrow
I am absolutely curious as to what your democratic flak could possibly claim that Obama has accomplished? Any possibility you could post that list. Seriously...I'm just puzzled as to what they could tout.
"These people are insane. How can we possibly let them get their hands on our government?"
You consider Nancy Pelosi "sane"?
Pelosi is sane enough, but the jury's still out on you and it's not looking good.
Pelosis is quite sane consdidering the manner of idiots she has to manage everyday.
But I suspetc it has a lot to do with your defintion of insanity:
Here's my list:
Rand Paul wants to allow busiesses to discrinate on the basis of race, etc.
(I consider this insane)
Sharon Angle wants people to pay Doctor Bills with Chickens (yep. insane)
Joe Miller wants to eliminte Medicare and Social Security for the elderly within a generation. (quite insane)
Most of these clowns consider Obama a Socailist (Certifiably Insane!)
These are just the highlights.
Please submit your list of Pelosi's insane behaviors.
(Or is it that you just don't like her?)
Walt, one correction to your list: it was Sharron Angle's Republican opponent for the nomination, Sue Lowden, who was the 'chicken lady,' not Angle. Lowden was far ahead in the nominating race until she started babbling about exchanging poultry for medical care; then she precipitously tanked. But Angle's plenty crazy on her own: like Joe Miller, she wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare and thinks unemployment benefits make people lazy. (These Tea Party Darlings also apparently believe all of these programs are 'welfare giveaways' rather than benefits paid for by people when they are working through payroll taxes, just like Alan "Screw the Middle Class and Older Women" Simpson.) She's also a Christian Theocrat, somehow believing that the first of the Bible's Ten Commandments should influence our secular government's operations. They have the same understanding of the Constitution as they do of the Sermon on the Mount, which is to say none.
In my neighborhood it is not permitted to raise chickens for any purpose....(Cows and pigs also...It would really piss of my neighbors).....
Yes...there are plenty of crazies out there but at least most are obvious..It is the more subtle crazies that scare me.......
"How can we possibly let them get their hands on our government?"
You act as though there is some huge gulf of difference between the democrats and republicans.
Obama is going to lose because he followed his election with GWBs policies. Its really that simple. There was no "Act I". It was Act III of GWBs Ghost Term. There will be no Act IV--at least by Obama. Perhaps Palin will star in that one.
I'd advise getting off that democratic mail list. Don't throw your money away on these murdering, looting, lying thugs.
There may not be a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans in your view and these days I don't think there is (except for a few worthy exceptions - Sanders and Grayson). The rest are gutless, poll-driven, media-driven and money-driven whores (or is that redundant?) But if, on the other hand, you think there is no difference between any of these "mainstream" common, garden variety whores and the psycho likes of Palin, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, etc. etc. then you are not paying attention, or you have no sense of danger.
Speaking of paying attention, perhaps you may have noticed that what I wrote in no way endorses the Democrats, indeed it is highly critical of them. Sadly, I deleted the so-called "list of accomplishemnst" because they were somehat laughable. I stated they were impressive but only as a list of efforts at legislation. Things that we would have expected of the President. Mileage standards for cars. Auto Industry bailout. None of the "major" concerns were touched on (jobs, war, gaps between rich and poor, etc.. Health care and Finacial reform were listed but these are not completed and 2011 will be the year that the Right fights to (and possibly succeeds in) overturning them. There were things he "began" like the "end" of "Don't Ask Don"t tell" and lots of other things that he more or less brought to the table but in no way fixed. Too few were troubles faced by Americans and none touched on our lives. (I can find the list of accomplishments as well. It's home on my other computer. I'll post it. It's funny. By the way I called the sender a democratic flak - which is also not a complement)
As far as Obama is concerned I similarly paid him no complement when I called him a CEO. He is a charismatic mechanic. Like Jack Welch. He runs the country the way Harvard teaches you to run a business project: Delegate, Compromise, Put the burden on the participants and by all means, Take no Stand yourself. Leave no traces behind that can haunt you. Avoid responsibility. Have no vision. That's our boy!
Regrettably, there is at least for me no consolation to be had in the paralyzing negativity that many on this site offer up. There is no advice and there are no strategies, just self indulgent depair. I wonder what you might suggest we do in November if all politcians are the same. If they are all corrupt in both parties. Vote for a third party? Sorry guys 50 days left is too late for that. No way to build enough momentum to make a dent by November. And the poor, the hungry, the unemploted and the miserable need some relief right away. Can't accept taking the long view without first offering to fight. Besides whether all of you have notices or not, there IS a third party on the ascent: The Tea Party and it is influencing the November elections greatly. (Did you think the 3rd party would be progressive?) BTW: We could have done that. Why didn't we?
If there is a progressive or a liberal or God-damn-it, a rational human being running for office in your state, then support them and vote for them and get the word out. Do something. Other wise we are surrendering and it feels a little soon to do that.
Of cousre this advice will be met with more patronizing negativeness. I'll be told to get with it, or grow up (or worse). I'll be asked when will I stop hoping? When will I give up on a broken system.
Like you? Never!
Damn awesome stuff !!
>>If there is a progressive or a liberal or God-damn-it, a rational human being running for office in your state, then support them and vote for them and get the word out. Do something. Other wise we are surrendering and it feels a little soon to do that.
Of cousre this advice will be met with more patronizing negativeness. I'll be told to get with it, or grow up (or worse). I'll be asked when will I stop hoping? When will I give up on a broken system.
Like you? Never!<<
>>With some luck and truth telling we might be able to "wake up", to come out of our collective trance and take some action. However, those who do so are conveniently labeled crazy or conspiracy theorists by all those who are deep in the trance. This makes it hard to get a lot of traction.<<
>>Take care of each other. It's our only chance for survival.And I'm ready to march on the money lenders. where are our leaders? some of them are on this board.<<
I love reading the articles on Common Dreams. Especially ones like this. So many great thoughts put forth and so much discussion about our current plight. I just joined another such site today, as are so many available. So much talk. Talk, talk, talk, ! I believe with one hundred great thoughts and one great action, there may be hope and change, like we all so dearly want. How many states are represented here ? I am in Kansas. So many smart people saying so many smart things. Is a grass roots internet campaign even possible ? You all are probably on here way more than I am and there seems to be great release and comfort just talking about it. Therapy. Wouldn't it be cool if we all had a favorite frequent poster. Someone who just always seems to spout very wise and calm and well spoken thoughts. This article and comments following is exactly why I like to receive my daily dose of common dreams. Great title for this site, BTW. Our favorite posters, pick their favorite posters and so on. Eventually, we whittle it down to one person who shines above all. Each of us has ideas. Some are common. Let us have common ideas put into a common pot. Have our favorite poster take our favorite ideas and join with other like sites and in the end, one favorite with a handful of favorite ideas. Then we start collecting to get this person exposure. I like the idea of a prime time spot. One that has examples of the 2 corrupt parties ad campaigns. Then talk about how this is what they think will sway us and get us out to vote. Then ask how long will we keep repeating this cycle that doesn't work. How much money and advertising will it take to get our vote. Where do we think this money comes from, for all these mudslinging, self promoting ads. Where does the money come from for our favorite. From real people with real thoughts for real change. So, after all,the dust settles from all the talk, talk, talk, we are still where we were before a word was uttered. In a hopeless quagmire. Oh and any great ideas about how to have accurate and fair and legal elections is also welcome. In the meantime, I will copy this and post it in other CD blogs. After so many comments, and a day later, we all run off to the next days installment to keep repeating the same thoughts over and over and yesterdays thoughts are...well....just yesterdays thoughts.
The one thing that is not considered is the difference in the fact that both our government and large business's do not support the well being of America or its citizens. In fact they actively work and legislate against it for the most part these days.
Our ruling class also despise the average American and their values.
These are very different circumstances from FDR's time.
Take action to stop executive excess: http://www.ips-dc.org/campaigns/ceo/index.php
Download the full IPS report here: http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2010
Rather than a 1936 speech by FDR, a speech more appropriate to our situation would be the address Roosevelt gave in 1944:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights
Excerpted from a speech delivered January 11, 1944:
"… We cannot be content, no matter how high [our] general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And … we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
If Obama reiterated FDR's economic rights speech, and followed it up with action, I think he'd be at 65 percent in the polls and the Dems would beat the Ugly Americans in the GOP with ease.
Sure, the same day Sarah Palin is accepted as a Mensa member.
Dear RSJ:
What a wonderful speech, thank you. Now what we need is for Homeland Security to change its role in government.Without JOBS, there is no Homeland Security, from without or from within.
True, stardust, and, FWIW, I think we should dump the Dept. of Homeland Security entirely -- just another useless, expensive bureaucracy we don't need. We'd be better off spending the DHS money on green jobs that wean us off oil.
Labor day is May 1st.
Everywhere else in the world.
The system is not just broken it is irretrievably beyond repair. Liberals and "progressives" what ever that is. They have lost. It's time move on and evolve.
FDR knew what he was talking about, did not need a teleprompter and had an outstanding ability to communicate with the citizens of this country. Moreover, he was not in bed with the banks or the corporations.
In contrast, Obama frequently doesn't know what he is talking about, uses a teleprompter even when he should not do so and no longer has any ability to communicate with the citizens. He is in bed with everybody.
FDR was a leader. Obama is a disaster.
What's all this Labor Day commotion?
Isn't that something that concerns women?