Obama the real target of GOP’s Senate unemployment extension opposition

It has been four years since I last collected a check for unemployment benefits. Yet the flow of emotions is coming back to me as I prepare to sit back and watch to see just how the U.S. Senate will behave Tuesday with regards to the issue.

My own employment history became erratic during the past decade, as I twice have had job layoffs that resulted in my being eligible for unemployment.

SO I CAN comprehend how people feel who are stuck in a position where they have to rely on those biweekly checks for a few hundred dollars at a time, just so they can have a little bit of cash to pay some bills. In short, what unemployment does is helps to avert a person going broke financially at those times when they lose their jobs for whatever reason.

In my case, I had employers both times who decided that their own profit margins would be greater if they didn’t have to cover the cost of my salary or any kind of health insurance benefit. The apologies (so to speak) of how my talents on the job would be missed didn’t overcome that bitter sentiment.

As things worked out for me, I had two different experiences when I went for unemployment. Or should I say, when unemployment ran out. For that is the situation political people will be asked to confront when the issue comes up in the Senate to extend the amount of time that a person can receive such benefits.

My first time, I received new paying work literally at the exact time that my “benefits” ran out. In fact, it worked out that because of the delay from when one verifies they need a check and when it is received, I literally got to cash my last unemployment check at the exact same time that I cashed my first partial paycheck from the “new” job I wound up getting – a job that was part-time and which eventually disappeared in its own right.

I LATER MANAGED to land a full-time job – one that was not news-oriented. Technically, I got out of the news business for a year-and-a-half. That job disappeared due to layoffs – and that time, I wasn’t so lucky.

When my time came for benefits to run out, I could cite several rejections for full-time work, but no offers.

So what I am saying is that I know first-hand what it feels like to get a job in the nick of time, and also to have benefits run out and not have a clue where the next bit of income will come from.

To use a euphemism from my junior high school days, “It reeks.”

EVENTUALLY, I LINED up my current employment situation, which consists of a part-time job with a newspaper that throws a lot of work my way, occasional checks for the work I do in publishing this weblog and its sister site, and occasional other assignments that pay bits of cash.

It is not a large income, but it beats unemployment. Or more accurately, it beats having one’s unemployment benefits run out.

Of course, I’m sure that some political people – especially those of the Republican persuasion – want me to pipe down. The last thing they want to hear is from people who are going to be expected to keep paying their bills, even though they have been unable to find work significant enough to cover one’s expenses, so to speak.

If anything, I can identify with those people who, admittedly, were used by President Barack Obama on Monday to try to drum up political support for the bill pending in the Senate that would extend the amount of time that benefits can be received.

IT MAY BE political, but then again, it is no less blatant than the opposition being generated by those politicians who want to represent interests that want to believe anyone who loses their job must have done something to warrant such action.

That is a shallow attitude to have, yet it is one that is too common. Recently, a broadcaster whom I used to know personally when I lived/worked in Springfield, Ill., put on his Facebook “wall” as his status, “ … if you are out of work for more than a year, maybe the problem is you …”

I don’t doubt that my “friend” (who now works in radio in Indianapolis, along with a few, varied part-time jobs, as I understand) seriously believes that, or that he isn’t alone in having such thoughts.

What is ridiculous is the thought that anybody would seriously rather have unemployment benefits rather than work. Because I remember the size of the checks I would receive back when I collected them. They weren’t for much money.

NOBODY GETS RICH collecting unemployment.. Everybody has to scale back their lives significantly – some people more than others.

I still remember the second time I collected unemployment, I was eligible for about $260 per week, for up to 26 weeks. I would have complained about that amount, except that I remember I was filling out my application alongside a woman who was trying to support two children on a crummy-paying job, then lost it. I still recall she was eligible for barely over $100 per week (because of how little her last job that laid her off had paid).

I accept that many politicians (who have jobs) are going to vote agaisnt the extension on Tuesday. In fact, the partisanship is so intense that Democrats are forced to wait to vote on the extension bill until after Carte Goodwin is formally sworn in as senator from West Virginia – to prevent the issue from failing due to a filibuster.

The bottom line is that we will hear a lot of rhetoric Tuesday about high-minded ideals. In reality, it is nothing but cheap politicking – at a time when we have some people suffering significantly in this time of economic struggles.

-30-

Whose obligation is it to pay Republic Windows workers their severance?

I’m not optimistic they’ll ever see dime one, but I’m curious to see what becomes of the employees at the former Republic Windows & Doors plant that suddenly closed down Friday after its bank cut off its line of credit.

Those are the same employees who spent the entire weekend holed up in their former workplace to express disgust with the fact that they learned not only were they out of work, but that they were not getting any of the severance pay to which they are legally entitled because their employer is going out of business.

OFFICIALS WITH THE United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers union that represent 260 empoyees at the plant (located on Goose Island) contend that the company was required to give them nearly two months notice of any intent to shut down the plant, and not just the couple of days warning they actually received.

That line of logic seems to be playing politically, as Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., made a point of stopping off at the plant during the weekend to express solidarity with the now-unemployed workers, and said, “if they had said something 60 days ago, we wouldn’t be here now.”

These workers say they are trying to prevent their now-former employer from carting off the plant’s machinery out of a desire to sell off the assets for whatever money they can get. At least not until some sort of financial settlement is reached with the workers – who join the ranks of millions of other people throughout the years who learned during the Christmas holiday season that they are now out of work.

It is in part because of that aspect that I feel some sympathy with these employees. A time when people are made to feel they are doing their patriotic duty to bolster the U.S. economy by engaging in holiday shopping is the worst time to let some of those people know they no longer have an income, and will have to wait until those holidays are over before they can engage in any serious search for a new job.

I HAVE NEVER understood the line of logic expressed by some people that the winter holidays are the perfect time to lose a job, because it puts one in line to be hired by companies when they are inclined to take on new people in the early weeks of the new year.

Like I said, I’m skeptical about the practical outcome of these protests. I’m curious to see how long the company will be inclined to let them sit about their former plant (although various reports indicate there has been no vandalism, and that some parts of the plant are now being better maintained than when there was no one in there).

Are we soon going to see people getting hauled off by police, with company officials gambling that a majority of the public will sympathize with a corporate entity and assume that anybody arrested by police somehow did something to “deserve it.”

I’m also not convinced that Republic will ever willingly pay out a penny of the severance they owe.

FOR THE COMPANY claims it is broke, which is why its bank (Bank of America) cut off its credit line. They claim they don’t have the money to pay the severance that they’re supposed to.

This could turn out to be one of those cases where a union will someday get a judge to issue an order demanding that the money be paid, but it never does because it doesn’t exist anymore. That future court order could turn out to be a worthless piece of paper.

Then, there’s the villain in this instance (at least, according to the union) – Bank of America.

They say the company is a bad financial risk and not worth having more money put into it, and they claim they should not be forced to be responsible for Republic’s severance payment responsibilities.

AND TO READ the commentary that is running on assorted web sites about this issue, there is a segment of the population that agrees with this logic, feeling that the bank would be harming its own investors if it continued to pump money into a bad business deal.

I’m sure these people are the same ones who view federal laws in this area (which require the 60-days notice of a mass layoff) as some sort of immoral interference by BIG GOVERNMENT into the world of business.

By that line of logic, allowing the bank to cut off the company so that severance cannot be paid is “The American Way” of doing things.

Excuse me if my sense of sarcasm is dripping a little too harsh. But I would have considered putting people out of work during the Christmas holiday to be the complete opposite of “The American Way.”

SO WHAT WILL happen?

The idealist in me would like to think that officials with the company and the union will be able to reach some sort of settlement when they are scheduled to meet Monday. But considering that union officials chose to blow off their last meeting with company officials so they could coordinate a week-end sit-in, I can’t help but feel that union officials feel they are all talked out.

So if union people are talked out and company officials stand by the line of talk that they’re broke, I’m not sure I see where a settlement can be reached.

About the only definite aspect of this issue is that there are a couple hundred more people joining the ranks of the unemployed in Chicago.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: PUSH/Rainbow Coalition brought along some food on Sunday for the (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-window-factory-sit-in-07dec07,0,667083.story) protesting former employees of Republic Windows & Doors, while others contend those employees should just forget their losses and move on with life.

Police say there has been no activity thus far that gives them a legal reason to remove (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/07chicago.html?hp) former Republic employees from the plant.

Rev. Jesse Jackson and many political people, including President-elect Barack Obama, are following in the lead of Luis Gutierrez in expressing sympathy for (http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Jackson.Republic.Windows.2.881882.html) the Republic employees.

“635” is the key stat in city budget

The scene of the budget cuts, including all those job layoffs.

I have mixed emotions to the new budget proposal approved Wednesday by the Chicago City Council. And no, I’m not getting all bent out of shape at the thought of the various fees being created and increased to try to balance out a $6 billion spending plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

The number that catches my attention is “635.”

THAT IS THE number of city government employees who are going to learn their labor is no longer affordable towards the goal of maintaining municipal services for city residents, although the Chicago Tribune at one point reported a potential total of 770 people to be laid off from their city jobs.

That strikes me as a lot of people to suddenly put out of work, particularly as we approach a Christmas holiday season that already was anticipated to be a down moment for the U.S. economy.

Now I know all the jokes people tell about government workers who sleep on the job, or who do menial tasks for great pay, or who manage to use their government access to eck out perks for themselves and their friends.

And from the one summer of my life that I spent on a government payroll (Cook County recorder of deeds, back in the days of Harry “Bus” Yourell), I know there are some government workers who give the impression of working for the government because they’re too un-ambitious to get a job in the private sector.

YET THAT IS still a lot of people to put out of work. When one notes the numbers of people left unemployed due to cutbacks at private companies, the competition for jobs and employment is going to be all the more tougher.

Now perhaps I’m too sensitive to the concept of unemployment and layoffs – having been laid off from three jobs (one of which was pretty close to being my fantasy job) in the past eight years. I’ve even lost some part-time employment because companies determined they couldn’t afford the pittance they were paying me for my labor.

So I know first-hand how depressing it can be to go through the concept of unemployment. I know the joys of getting a new job the exact week that one’s unemployment benefits run out, and I also know what it is like to have those benefits come to an end with no new income source lined up.

The idea that there are now 770 (or as few as 635) more people in Chicago who will endure the same things I have gone through in recent years is depressing to me. This isn’t a fate I would wish on my enemies.

IT IS WITH that attitude in my mind that I have to give a bit of praise to Billy Ocasio. He’s the alderman who represents the largely-Puerto Rican Humboldt Park and Logan Square neighborhoods in the City Council.

And he’s also the lone alderman who dared to vote against the budget proposal put forth by Mayor Richard M. Daley.

It’s not that Ocasio doesn’t realize that cuts in municipal staffing are going to have to comprise a portion of the $469 million that city officials needed to cut in order to ensure that the new city budget would be balanced.

Yet he became the “1” in the 49-1 vote because he was convinced that too many laborers who actually do work in the neighborhoods are going to be included in the ranks of the laid off – rather than middle-management types who work in offices at City Hall.

IT WAS NICE to know someone was keeping those soon-to-be-unemployed city workers in his mind while taking a vote on the city’s near-term financial future.

Now I’m not one of those people who thinks everybody wearing a tacky tie while working a desk job at “the Hall” is somehow worthless. I’m not convinced that every “Streets and San” worker is a noble creature worthy of eternal job protection.

But I do realize that fewer workers in Streets and Sanitation, or any city agency for the matter, means remaining staff being burdened to do more and more work to maintain city services at the same level.

Eventually, it becomes a situation where they just can’t do the same amount of work, and city services suffer. That will give Chicago residents yet more issues to gripe about when they think of city government.

TO ME, DECLINING levels of service is a significant issue. In my mind, it is more important than the increase in parking garage taxes charged by the city, or the hike in taxes charged on sporting event tickets.

Some people are going to hear about the new budget and complain – I’m paying too much already. And perhaps they are.

But I’m going to think just a bit about the several hundred people newly unemployed in order to ensure a balanced budget.

Part of it is a sympathetic thought of being unemployed around the winter holidays. But part of it also is worry about whether these people have the potential to compete with me for work.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Considering the declining financial status of the newspaper industry, both nationally and in Chicago, will this be one of the last news events where we (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1287711,budget-chicago-2009-city-council-111908.article) will be able to compare and contrast dueling news coverage of an event (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/11/aldermen-approv.html) in the Sun-Times and Tribune?

Some people are trying to create partisan political spats by claiming the added security in downtown Chicago on account of President-elect Barack Obama’s presence there during (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1285826,daley-obama-transition-chicago-police-111808.article) the transition period is adding to the city’s police expenses.