So, I lied...well, not really...I said I might take a total blog break but...here I am in Los Angeles and was up early reading the LATimes and saw Ed Asner's plea to support the strike authorization request from the leadership of the Screen Actors Guild, which is embroiled in a pretty intense internal fight over the strike vote. You might remember that Asner was president of SAG in the early 1980s and caught a lot of grief from the more conservative members of SAG (particularly from the now-departed Charlton Heston). Here is Asner's plea:

We can't take this deal because it will destroy the ability of actors to earn a living. Not top-earning stars, of course, but the hardworking players whose faces you see in countless television shows and movies. I can't in good conscience stand down and let that happen. Almost all informed actors, including some recent outspoken A-listers, agree that what's being offered is inadequate for SAG members. But many of them still won't vote to authorize a strike. Do they realize how their "go along to get along" attitude will affect their brothers and sisters?

   And...

When it comes to union negotiations, the only negotiating strategy that makes sense is to get the best deal for your members. Nobody at SAG has called for a strike, just an authorization to be used at our national board's discretion. Nobody at SAG wants a strike. We just want a fair deal for actors and the same opportunity to negotiate as any other guild. We want a deal that doesn't include rollbacks, addresses our specific needs and that allows us to share in the success of new media when that success inevitably arrives.

   Enjoy the holidays...

   My brain is a little tired but I also find it hard to turn it off...which is to say that I am about to get on a plane for warmer parts to spoil my nieces, see some friends, play some golf. Blogging may or not happen between now and New Year's. But, you never know.

   But feel free to post yourselves. I want more participation from all of you out there who are lurking--reading but not posting. Sign up. Make an account. You can do it anonymously if you choose (yes, John Sweeney, that means you, too!!!).

   But, for sure I'll see you all in 2009. Have a wonderful holiday.

  I've written about the building strife recently. The new development comes via The New York Times, though this is also being covered elsewhere:

Facing internal strife over stalled contract negotiations, Hollywood’s largest union decided late on Monday to postpone plans for a strike authorization vote and instead called for an emergency meeting of its national board in Los Angeles next month.

The abrupt change in plans by the Screen Actors Guild reflected fierce disagreements within it about the wisdom of seeking strike authorization during an economic recession.

In recent weeks scores of boldface-name actors have endorsed a petition urging members to reject a strike; many others have expressed support for the measure. The union has doubled down on an information campaign urging members to vote yes.

The authorization vote had been scheduled to begin with the mailing of ballots on Jan. 2, and was to last three weeks. Alan Rosenberg, the president of the union, said two weeks ago that approval of the strike authorization would send "a strong message" to the studios.

But opposition to a strike has stifled the union’s negotiating abilities. The actors’ contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents Hollywood’s major production companies and studios, expired on June 30.

  The fact is the SAG leadership simply does not have the 75 percent voting margin it needs to pass the strike authorization. It is smart to put the vote off, for now, and try to unify the union before pushing ahead.

  My own opinion: Even though, if I was a SAG member, I would vote for the strike authorization, SAG cannot strike now. It would be suicide.

  But, the bigger question the SAG strife poses is about the future of the creators' rights movement. A bit of background and analysis follows:

  The Beast of Bentonville--aka Wal-Mart--is slowly, but surely, letting go of the argument "we're innocent" of widespread lawbreaking. And this just in: it will settle 63 lawsuits for a cool $640 million.

  From The New York Times:

Wal-Mart Stores, the nation’s largest retailer, said Tuesday that it would pay up to $640 million to settle some 63 wage-and-hour lawsuits that accused it of forcing employees to work off the clock and go without meal and rest breaks.

Some of the cases date back to 2000.

"Many of these lawsuits were filed years ago and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today," Tom Mars, executive vice president and general counsel for Wal-Mart Stores said in a statement.

The cases, which were brought by different groups of lawyers in various states, involved hundreds of thousands of current and former hourly employees. The total amount to be paid will depend on the number of claims submitted, but it will be at least $352 million, Wal-Mart said.

  To keep this in perspective, the Beast is taking care of just a tiny bit of the wreckage it has left around the country and world. If Mr. Mars wants to clean up the Beast's act, it has a lot more work to do:

 Wal-Mart has at least 80 class-action lawsuits in 41 states pending against it.

 Wal-Mart illegally denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage and hour laws--a violation that may cost the company $2 billion.

 Wal-Mart abuses women, and is the defendant in the biggest sex discrimination case in history.

 Wal-Mart is a habitual tax-dodger.

 Wal-Mart's heirs buy expensive paintings but won't give their workers decent health care.

 Wal-Mart exploits children in Mexico.

 But, this still is a nice bit of news. And I should add: this is all coming because of the activism and pressure brought to bear against the Beast by a whole lot of people in the past few years.

   I've made the point over the past many months that the current financial crisis will be used--and has been used--as a cover to attack workers and, particularly unions. There is a struggle going on over two visions of society: a decent standard of living vs. a Wal-Mart standard of living. I made that point in a debate on CNBC (video here).

   And, yesterday, in arguing that Randi Weingarten should be chosen for the New York senate seat, I argued that part of the reason she should take that spot is so that we can confront the very attacks that are likely to be launched, namely anti-teachers' union nonsense. Those attacks would be specific to the AFT/UFt but they would be, broadly speaking, no different than the attacks leveled against all unions.

   Today, Bob Herbert picks up the theme in a very strong column. He starts with this clear point:

This is not a post about why someone should not be the next U.S. Senator from New York. It's advocating for someone who should: the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten.

   Nothing is keeping my anger quotient higher than the refusal by politicians in New York state--and across the nation--to tax the rich. It is nothing less than an obscenity. We've got mountains of money piled high in a few bank accounts--and, yet, no one wants to ask those fortunate few to stop cuts in hospitals, education and basic services.

   Let me say it clearly: the rich are killing people. Seriously. More people will get sick and die because these bastards won't step forward and say, "we should pay our fair share". And we have cowards--like our governor in New York--who won't demand that the rich pay their fair share.

   The one thing that probably stops me from bursting a blood vessel is that there are people who are trying to pry some money from those who have it. One coalition is the Fair Share Tax Reform. Here's an ad it will be running in New York:

   Take it for what it is: unconfirmed rumor but from the Associated Press:

 

A labor official says Rep. Hilda Solis of California will be nominated as labor secretary by President-elect Barack Obama.

The Democratic congresswoman was just elected to her fifth term representing heavily Hispanic portions of eastern Los Angeles County and east L.A. She is the daughter of Mexican and Nicaraguan immigrants and has been the only member of Congress of Central American descent.

The official spoke on conditions of anonymity because an announcement has not been made yet. A call to Solis's office was not immediately returned.

Solis, 51, has focused on immigration and environment issues while in the House.

An announcement is expected from the Obama transition team in the next few days.

 UPDATED: this is pretty much confirmed. I've talked to labor people in the know. And I think it's a great pick. Solis is 100 percent in labor's camp, and she won't need training wheels to get up-to-speed. What we don't know yet is how big a voice she will have when it comes to going toe-to-toe with the Commerce, Treasury and other Administration voices for business. And a lot will depend on who she brings in below her to actually run the show...please, can we have competent people who actually can run big operations, as in that they've proven they can?