RT On Air

Saturday, 4 February 2012

Occupy the Super Bowl: Indiana’s New Anti-Union Law Sparks Protest at Sport’s Biggest Spectacle





Occupy protesters in Indianapolis are gearing up to use the media spotlight on Sunday’s Super Bowl XLVI to rally for union rights outside the statehouse. Earlier this week, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a so-called "right to work" measure into law that critics say will result in lower wages and diminished collective bargaining rights. Indiana workers have received the backing of the National Football League Players Association, which has called "right to work" "a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights." We’re joined from Indiana by Tithi Bhattacharya, an associate professor of South Asian History at Purdue University and a protester who is taking part in Occupy the Super Bowl. "It is absolutely shameful that the legislature passed a law that condemns unions and is now using the city to showcase Indianapolis while ordinary people in Indiana are completely opposed to this law," Bhattacharya says.

Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History at Purdue University. She is a leading member of Occupy Purdue and has written about Occupy the Super Bowl.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn to Super Bowl Sunday, it’s the biggest football game and biggest television show of the year. Last year, an estimated 111 million people watched it. But this year, viewers may have something more to watch than just the game. Occupy protesters in Indianapolis are gearing up to use the prime-time media spotlight to rally for union rights.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this week, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a so-called "right to work" measure into law, making Indiana the 23rd state to enact similar legislation. The controversial law exempts employees at unionized companies from paying union dues or fees if they so desire. Republicans claim the bill will help Indiana attract new, needed businesses and jobs. Critics say the legislation is an organized attack against labor that will result in lower wages and diminished collective bargaining rights. Following the bill’s approval Wednesday, thousands of union workers held a protest march to Lucas Oil Stadium, where the Super Bowl will be played this Sunday. The National Football League Players Association has also opposed the legislation calling right-to-work a "Political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights." DeMaurice Smith recently appeared on Dave Zirin’s radio show Edge of Sports Radio. Smith is the executive director of The National Football League Players Association.

DEMAURICE SMITH: We are in lock-step with organized labor. I’m proud to sit on the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO. Why? Because we share all of the same issues that American people share. We want decent wages, you want a fair pension, you want to be taken care of when you get hurt, you want a decent and safe working environment. So when you look at proposed legislation in a place like Indiana that wants to call it something called "Right to Work", but you realize that...

DAVE ZIRIN: A tricky phrase, "right to work".

DEMAURICE SMITH: Very tricky phrase. Let’s just put the hammer on the nail. It’s untrue. This bill has nothing to do with a right to work. If folks in Indiana and that great legislation—-and they want to pass a bill that really is something called "Right to Work", have a constitutional amendment that guarantees every citizen a right to a job. That is a right to work. What this is, instead, is a right to enforce and to ensure that ordinary working people can’t get together as a team, can’t organize, can’t stand together, and can’t fight or negotiate with management on an even playing field.

JUAN GONZALEZ: That was DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director of The National Football League Players Association. In related labor news, Arizona Republicans have just introduced legislation that would radically curb public employee’s unions in their state. A series of measures introduced this week would bar government agencies from collectively bargaining with public employees including firefighters and police. Unions would be prevented from collecting dues through automatic deductions. We go now to Indiana to speak with Tithi Bhattacharya. She is an Associate Professor of South Asian History at Purdue University. She is a leading member of Occupy Purdue and has written about Occupy in the Super bowl. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you hear us professor? Tell us about the Occupy protests that are planned.

TITHI BHATTACHARYA: Well, the first thing to say is that the protest on Sunday actually is not a one-off. It stands on the shoulder of and in solidarity with the thousands of people who came to the State House over the last two weeks to protest this bill. It is also not, I think, the end—-or I hope it’s not the end of this series of protests. Why the Super Bowl? Lucas Oil Stadium was built with 100% union labor. Every single structure that is up in the city of Indianapolis today that has been built to beautify the city has been built with union labor. So, I think it is absolutely shameful that the legislature passed a law that condemns unions and is now using the city to kind of showcase Indianapolis while ordinary people in Indiana are completely opposed to this law. The protest on Sunday also stands in solidarity with the NFL Players Union, which has come out so strongly against the legislation. I think there has been some talk of how the Occupy movement may—-there has been some fear that the Occupy movement may disrupt a Super Bowl. As far as I know and as far as I’m concerned, the Occupy movement nationally has been a non-violent movement and absolutely is committed to being non-violent on Saturday. The question of disruption absolutely is not an issue because as I said before, we stand in solidarity with the Players Union. The only thing the Occupy movement, on Sunday, hopes to disrupt is the complacency of the 1% who think that they can get away with this.

AMY GOODMAN: While The Football Players Union has expressed solidarity with the workers in Indiana, Fox Business News spoke with NFL Hall of famer Fran Tarkenton about the Super Bowl protests.

FOX REPORTER: Fran, you have been an outspoken opponent of municipal unions. What’s their beef with Indianapolis, which is staging the Super Bowl?

FRAN TARKENTON: Because they’ve got it made. They work 20 years, they could retire at 90% of their salary for the rest of their life. There’s no accountability. They don’t have to work hard. They go up by seniority. If the NFL—-if their union was like a public Union, the NFL would be broke. But, the government kind of bails them out, but now that’s getting to be problematic. This was the first right-to-work state decision in 15 years. It looks like Mitch Daniels is going to sign that into law. They’re angry about being it being a right-to-work state when we need to generate 20 million jobs?

AMY GOODMAN: NFL Hall of famer, Fran Tarkenton went on to say the protesters are going to make fools of themselves.

FRAN TARKENTON: ...disrupts the biggest American even there is and you are right, the northeastern fans are the best football fans in the world. They’ll come in there and spend tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s just such a great. It really is a positive, great event, and they’re going to make fools of themselves by going out there infringing on the rights of people who want to enjoy this great event.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Bhattacharya, your response?

TITHI BHATTACHARYA: Nine out of the ten poorest states—-states with the poorest health and safety records—-are actually right-to-work states. But, most importantly, we need to keep in mind that this is actually an effort to kill unions in the Midwest. This is part of a concerted effort that is going on to strike at the heart of labor mobilizing and labor organizing it is coming in Wisconsin, it is coming in Indiana, and it is coming in Michigan. And I think...Hello?

AMY GOODMAN: Keep speaking, go ahead.

TITHI BHATTACHARYA: So, I think that is really what’s at the heart of it. On a broader basis, I think Right to Work is one of those legislations that is a concerted effort to pass off this recession on working people by trying to lower our wages. All due respect to the Hall of famer, but he did say that people are going to be bailed out. Well actually, the institutions that got bailed out are the banks. This is an effort to say that the recession is hurting the economy, so ordinary people need to tighten their belts. Well actually, ordinary people are not responsible for the recession, and this attack on ordinary people speaking out or fighting back—-which is really what the unions are—-is a naked display of union busting, which actually needs to stop.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Bhattacharya, where will you be on Sunday at the Superbowl?

TITHI BHATTACHARYA: Like the rest of the occupiers from across the state, I will be at the Indiana State House. The protest has been called at the South Lawn of the Indiana State House at 12:00 noon. That’s where I hope all people who are fighting against these kind of policies of the 1% inside the legislatures, and are fighting against the display of the power of the 1% on our streets of Indianapolis with the corporate logos, will be there to join me in a non-violent protest.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Professor Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History at Purdue University, a leading member of the Occupy Purdue, written about Occupy Super Bowl. Speaking to us from West Lafayette, Indiana.


 
 Subscribe in a reader

Friday, 3 February 2012

ICC's independent governance review by Lord Woolf report looks to shake up old boys' club




The Woolf report can be read in full here

The ICC's independent governance review, headed by Lord Woolf, has called for sweeping changes in the administration of cricket and the functioning of its governing body. It starts with a restructuring of the ICC's executive board to make it more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries and also recommends a re-examination of the rights and benefits of the Test-playing Full Member nations, calling for measures to increase transparency in dealings by the ICC and its members.

The review looks at cricket's growth over the past decade and the effect of that growth on the ICC and the various member nations, noting the perception that the bigger nations look after their own interests and not those of the game per se. "The ICC reacts as though it is primarily a Members club," the review notes; "its interest in enhancing the global development of the game is secondary."

Much of its vision of a revamped ICC is aimed at redressing this imbalance between the cricket-playing nations. The most important recommendation concerns revamping the ICC's executive board, its top decision-making body, to reduce the numerical strength of the Full Members and to offset their influence by bringing in independent directors, in keeping with best corporate governance practices.

The board currently comprises the heads of all Full Member nations, three representatives from the Associates and Affiliates and the ICC's president, vice-president and chief executive. Woolf's plan incorporates five independent directors - three from within the game and two from outside to bring in diversity of opinion and experience - with voting rights and the additional stipulation that they should not be in a minority. It suggests that the Full Member nations eventually have four representatives, and the Associates two, with the chairman, president and chief executive making up the desired dozen.

It also suggests that an ICC director should not concurrently hold any leadership or executive post with their home boards. For example, N Srinivasan is currently both an ICC director and president of the Indian board but, if the recommendations are accepted, he can't retain both posts. As for independent directors, they must not have not recently held positions of authority on any member board nor any commercial body that has had significant contractual relationships with the ICC.

The suggestions of the review are not binding on the ICC, which will examine it at the next Board meeting in April. On Wednesday the ICC had announced its plan to split the post of president into a ceremonial and a governance role, stating that the decision had been in agreement with two of the Woolf report's 65 recommendations. 

The report also asked for greater opportunities for non-Test playing countries to compete against the top nations and an increased say for them in the administration of the game. 

It recommended that the ICC do away with the present membership system of Full Members (the Test-playing countries), Associates (countries where cricket is firmly established and organised, such as Ireland etc) and Affiliates (countries where the game is played in accordance with the Laws of cricket, such as Bhutan etc), and instead have two clear membership classes: the Full Members and Associates. 

It has asked that the ICC adopt the principle of one Board member, one vote. Under the ICC's current voting pattern in the full council, Full Member nations and the 35 Associates have one vote each, while the 60 Affiliates are split into groups of twelve, each of which has a single collective vote, adding up to a total of five. For a special resolution to change the ICC Constitution the requirement is for the support of eight Full Members and 38 out of 50 of the full council. 

In another recommendation, the Woolf report asks for the current number of Full Members be "reviewed" in order to "open up the full membership more widely." It suggests that Test status "should not be a requirement of full member status." It says that the full member "class" should include Test playing nations "together with other high-performing (but not Test playing) members." 

Being granted Full Membership gives a country greater access to the ICC's funds and greater voting power in the governing body's chief executive's committee as well as the full council. 

The Associates mostly get their chances to play Test countries at ICC tournaments such as the World Cup and the World Twenty20 but the report called for the FTP to be modified to provide Associates more matches against the big boys outside these global events. 

The final report of the Woolf review was presented to the ICC Executive Board on Tuesday and released to the public on Thursday. In preparing the report, Lord Woolf was assisted by Justice Mukul Mudgal, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and by consultancy firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers. 

The report was written after interviews with various stakeholders, including the ICC board, the chief executives' committee, heads of the national cricket bodies, players' associations, former heads of the ICC and journalists.


 Subscribe in a reader

The Australian Disease: On The Decline of Love and the Rise of Non-Freedom. Richard Flanagan





http://blip.tv/slowtv/the-decline-of-love-richard-flanagan-5775955

Richard Flanagan is one of Australia's most loved novelists - and most powerful orators. In the annual Alan Missen oration and the Melbourne Writers Festival's closing night address, he considers Rilke's challenge: "For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation." He questions how prepared we are for that task on the brink of a new century, looking at love and freedom through the works of writers and recent history.

The written version of this speech appears in Quarterly Essay #44, published by Black inc.

Richard Flanagan's books include Death of A River Guide, The Sound of One Hand Clapping, Gould's Book of Fish, The Unknown Terrorist, and Wanting.

Presented by Melbourne Writers Festival 2011

 Subscribe in a reader

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Beast File: Gina Reinhart (HUNGRY BEAST) New major shareholder in Fairfax media






THE BEAST FILE: GINA RINEHART

Video (1)

Meet Gina Rinehart; Australia’s richest person, after her wealth rocketed from 2 to 9 billion dollars last year.

The only child of mining magnate Lang Hancock, Gina grew up on a 24-billion-tonne iron ore deposit in WA, ditched uni after a year of economics and joined the family company..

At 21, Gina announced a plan to revolutionise open cut mining by using nuclear explosions. The plan was scrapped, but 20 years later she mused: “It’s a pity it didn’t happen”.

Rinehart became famous for her feud with Rose Lacson. Hired to look after her aging father, the Fillipino housekeeper married him. When Gina tried to intervene, her father cruelly rebuked her: “Allow me to remember you as the neat, trim, capable, attractive young lady … rather than the slothful, vindictive and devious baby elephant you have become. I am glad your mother cannot see you now". A few months later he removed her as a director of Hancock Resources.

Lang died in 1992. Rinehart spent 14 years brawling with her step-mother, the remarried Rose Porteous, over the estate. Lang’s body was cremated, but with Gina hoping tests would eventually prove Rose killed him, his heart, kidneys and liver were locked up in Perth mortuary where they remain to this day. The coroner found he died of natural causes.

While Rinehart successfully expanded the family company, she remained publicity-shy, bullet proofing her cars and office windows, and retaining former SAS men as bodyguards.

In 2010 she went public, protesting Labor’s proposed mining tax. Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision, the lobby group she founded, includes her corporate strategist, John McRobert, who used to advise Pauline Hanson, and climate skeptic Ian Plimer. Rinehart had also funded British skeptic Lord Monckton’s 2010 tour of Australia.

In November, she bought stakes in Channel Ten and Fairfax Newspapers. Family friend Ron Manners explained that Rinehart “would like her voice to be heard”.

What does that voice sound like? Rinehart published her 7-point-plan for Australia in March. It includes: cutting taxes on mining, loosening environmental regulations and bringing in cheap migrant labour from Asia, an act she says would be “humanitarian”.

She is reportedly behind Channel Ten’s decision to give Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most vocal climate change denier, his own TV show.



 
 Subscribe in a reader