It also seems like the rich use their power and wealth to get richer, which includes managing the media, so that they can get even more power and more media puppetry.
While the middle just work on making things better for the middle, which doesn't give them extra power to spread the word.
This is one of the roles that unions would play if they weren't presently under siege.
I think I want this elaborated a little further, especially in the context of the current economic environment.
It also seems like the rich use their power and wealth to get richer, which includes managing the media, so that they can get even more power and more media puppetry.
While the middle just work on making things better for the middle, which doesn't give them extra power to spread the word.
This is one of the roles that unions would play if they weren't presently under siege.
I think I want this elaborated a little further, especially in the context of the current economic environment.
I believe he's referring to the glut of unions that are giving up some of their pay, benefits, and retirement in order to avoid mass layoffs. Mostly the auto industry I think.
-edit-
Let me see if I can find some concrete examples.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I'm pretty sure his point is actually that the entire purpose of Unions is to fight for the common man against the rich. The only way for the less wealthy to fight back is to organize.
Unfortunately, the media and the GOP and such has spent DECADES demonizing Unions in the eyes of most people and thus they are no longer capable of performing this service.
Basically, unions are trying to keep their jobs at a living wage, and companies/govts can't afford it.
Woo! Race to the bottom!
The middle class and lower are pretty well fucked in this country, and the fucking is only going to get harder and more frequent in the future. I'd lament this a little more if the middle class hadn't been complicit along the way towards its decimation.
I'm pretty sure his point is actually that the entire purpose of Unions is to fight for the common man against the rich. The only way for the less wealthy to fight back is to organize.
Unfortunately, the media and the GOP and such has spent DECADES demonizing Unions in the eyes of most people and thus they are no longer capable of performing this service.
This.
Historically (in America since the 30's) unions have served as the vanguard of programs designed to bolster the middle class, reduce poverty, and reduce income inequality even when it is not in their members' direct and immediate interest to do so (and this is in addition to unions' playing field leveling effects). You still see this today with HCR and minimum wage increases, but their ability to advocate further has been severely compromised by the fact that they're currently fighting for their very existence.
Basically, unions are trying to keep their jobs at a living wage, and companies/govts can't afford it.
Woo! Race to the bottom!
The middle class and lower are pretty well fucked in this country, and the fucking is only going to get harder and more frequent in the future. I'd lament this a little more if the middle class hadn't been complicit along the way towards its decimation.
But I could be rich someday! I don't want to screw myself over in the future by voting for my interests now!
Basically, unions are trying to keep their jobs at a living wage, and companies/govts can't afford it.
You know, the whole "we can't afford it" thing would be a lot more believable if the salaries of cops, corrections officers, and executive boards were getting cut, too.
With the elections last week, the Republicans took over the House once again. The list of things this means is long and troubling, but the most troubling to me come in the forms of two Texas far-right Republicans: Congressmen Ralph Hall and Joe Barton.
HallThe former, you may remember, tried to scuttle a science innovation and education bill by adding a rider to it making it illegal to pay the salaries of government employees who watch porn on work computers. When the bill finally passed, he then made incredibly hypocritical statements about the Democrats in order to scapegoat them.
Yeah, so that guy? He’s set to take over the House Committee on Science and Technology. Terrific.
The latter, Joe Barton, is quite simply an embarrassment. He is most famous for apologizing to then BP President Tony Hayward for the government being mean to the oil company, after BP dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The havoc that leak unleashed is only just now coming to light. Congressman Barton also is a climate change denier, and went so far as to write a very misleading editorial in the Washington Post about it.
So yeah, of course he’s angling to be head of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Did I mention that Representative Barton has also received more money from the oil and gas industry than any other member of Congress? I’m sure that won’t interfere at all with any decisions he’ll have to make about the industry. It’s not like he would ever have to apologize again now is it?
It’s possible Barton won’t get the seat, since he’s been the Republican leader of the Committee for six years, the limit. The party will have to grant him a waiver for the seat, and even they are embarrassed by his apology to Hayward (note the source of that link). So we’ll see. But the others trying to get the seat are no better; all of them are climate change deniers.
Seriously, this should be a constant refrain from Dems and the left.
Republicans: Small businesses need certainty!
Us: Taxes are already as low as Republicans want them. In fact, they're LOWER than even the Bush tax cuts. SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Republicans: You can't punish rich people with taxes because they create jobs! They won't invest otherwise!
Us: Unpatriotic rich people would rather the middle class starve than pay more in taxes!
I'm sure other people could word it more artfully, but the main thing is that, since we're clearly engaged in class warfare, it would make sense for us to gin up anger at the upper class for making off like bandits and putting the burden on the lower and middle classes.
With the elections last week, the Republicans took over the House once again. The list of things this means is long and troubling, but the most troubling to me come in the forms of two Texas far-right Republicans: Congressmen Ralph Hall and Joe Barton.
HallThe former, you may remember, tried to scuttle a science innovation and education bill by adding a rider to it making it illegal to pay the salaries of government employees who watch porn on work computers. When the bill finally passed, he then made incredibly hypocritical statements about the Democrats in order to scapegoat them.
Yeah, so that guy? He’s set to take over the House Committee on Science and Technology. Terrific.
The latter, Joe Barton, is quite simply an embarrassment. He is most famous for apologizing to then BP President Tony Hayward for the government being mean to the oil company, after BP dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The havoc that leak unleashed is only just now coming to light. Congressman Barton also is a climate change denier, and went so far as to write a very misleading editorial in the Washington Post about it.
So yeah, of course he’s angling to be head of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Did I mention that Representative Barton has also received more money from the oil and gas industry than any other member of Congress? I’m sure that won’t interfere at all with any decisions he’ll have to make about the industry. It’s not like he would ever have to apologize again now is it?
It’s possible Barton won’t get the seat, since he’s been the Republican leader of the Committee for six years, the limit. The party will have to grant him a waiver for the seat, and even they are embarrassed by his apology to Hayward (note the source of that link). So we’ll see. But the others trying to get the seat are no better; all of them are climate change deniers.
For the love of the unholy lich king.
You know, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not as politically astute as I should be.
But FUCK.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
This, I think, really underscores the goddamned idiocy of people saying that Dems are as bad as Republicans, and therefore it doesn't matter who is in power.
Basically, unions are trying to keep their jobs at a living wage, and companies/govts can't afford it.
You know, the whole "we can't afford it" thing would be a lot more believable if the salaries of cops, corrections officers, and executive boards were getting cut, too.
I tend to believe it when it comes to state governments, but unless a company is on the verge of complete bankruptcy I assume they are lying.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Seriously, this should be a constant refrain from Dems and the left.
Republicans: Small businesses need certainty!
Us: Taxes are already as low as Republicans want them. In fact, they're LOWER than even the Bush tax cuts. SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Republicans: You can't punish rich people with taxes because they create jobs! They won't invest otherwise!
Us: Unpatriotic rich people would rather the middle class starve than pay more in taxes!
I'm sure other people could word it more artfully, but the main thing is that, since we're clearly engaged in class warfare, it would make sense for us to gin up anger at the upper class for making off like bandits and putting the burden on the lower and middle classes.
Media: Why are Democrats so mean? Repeat ad nauseam.
Republicans: You can't punish rich people with taxes because they create jobs! They won't invest otherwise!
Us: Unpatriotic rich people would rather the middle class starve than pay more in taxes!
No, the correct answer is thus: Prove that giving rich people more money creates jobs. Prove it.
They can't, because trickle-down economics doesn't work.
I think the current incarnation is pretty much doomed to failure.
For good reason it doesn't really build up a "bank" of funds but because of that very lack of a bank it is going to be raped by the Boomers. Of course, when I say "It" I mean me and my contemporaries or else the debt is going to get flat out absurd.
Unless you can shoot every fucker who thinks "Starve the Beast" is good I don't see how to make the current system work.
I'm pretty sure his point is actually that the entire purpose of Unions is to fight for the common man against the rich. The only way for the less wealthy to fight back is to organize.
Unfortunately, the media and the GOP and such has spent DECADES demonizing Unions in the eyes of most people and thus they are no longer capable of performing this service.
The unions have been their own worst enemy for decades now. The unions currently exist mostly to provide jobs for union leadership. Given the corruption, ties to organized crime and general hostility to change and innovation shown by unions, it's not surprising that few people have an interest in them anymore.
And public-sector unions shouldn't exist.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm pretty sure his point is actually that the entire purpose of Unions is to fight for the common man against the rich. The only way for the less wealthy to fight back is to organize.
Unfortunately, the media and the GOP and such has spent DECADES demonizing Unions in the eyes of most people and thus they are no longer capable of performing this service.
The unions have been their own worst enemy for decades now. The unions currently exist mostly to provide jobs for union leadership. Given the corruption, ties to organized crime and general hostility to change and innovation shown by unions, it's not surprising that few people have an interest in them anymore.
And public-sector unions shouldn't exist.
If this country had decent worker protections and universal health care we wouldn't need unions
Republicans: You can't punish rich people with taxes because they create jobs! They won't invest otherwise!
Us: Unpatriotic rich people would rather the middle class starve than pay more in taxes!
No, the correct answer is thus: Prove that giving rich people more money creates jobs. Prove it.
They can't, because trickle-down economics doesn't work.
Like I said, other people can surely word it better than I did.
Also, I think it'd be less a problem with the media playing for their corporate masters than it would be with corporate Dems playing for their corporate masters. We can't have proper populist uprising/class warfare because the party that supposedly represents working people is led by conservaDems who are as interested in protecting the rich as Republicans are.
The unions have been their own worst enemy for decades now. The unions currently exist mostly to provide jobs for union leadership. Given the corruption, ties to organized crime and general hostility to change and innovation shown by unions, it's not surprising that few people have an interest in them anymore.
And public-sector unions shouldn't exist.
Not all unions are the same. The president of mine, for example, gets a whopping $2,500/year for his efforts, and the rest of the officers get $900/year.
When you say "public sector," do you mean government employees (postal workers, police officers, etc)? Or do you mean public employees (government employees PLUS teachers, university employees, etc)?
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
With the elections last week, the Republicans took over the House once again. The list of things this means is long and troubling, but the most troubling to me come in the forms of two Texas far-right Republicans: Congressmen Ralph Hall and Joe Barton.
HallThe former, you may remember, tried to scuttle a science innovation and education bill by adding a rider to it making it illegal to pay the salaries of government employees who watch porn on work computers. When the bill finally passed, he then made incredibly hypocritical statements about the Democrats in order to scapegoat them.
Yeah, so that guy? He’s set to take over the House Committee on Science and Technology. Terrific.
The latter, Joe Barton, is quite simply an embarrassment. He is most famous for apologizing to then BP President Tony Hayward for the government being mean to the oil company, after BP dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The havoc that leak unleashed is only just now coming to light. Congressman Barton also is a climate change denier, and went so far as to write a very misleading editorial in the Washington Post about it.
So yeah, of course he’s angling to be head of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Did I mention that Representative Barton has also received more money from the oil and gas industry than any other member of Congress? I’m sure that won’t interfere at all with any decisions he’ll have to make about the industry. It’s not like he would ever have to apologize again now is it?
It’s possible Barton won’t get the seat, since he’s been the Republican leader of the Committee for six years, the limit. The party will have to grant him a waiver for the seat, and even they are embarrassed by his apology to Hayward (note the source of that link). So we’ll see. But the others trying to get the seat are no better; all of them are climate change deniers.
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
And I say this as a liberal and as a strong supporter of labor.
You can't really be a strong supporter of labor if you're in favor of fucking over the majority of it.
Oh yes I can, the private sector part. Public sector unions have completely out of proportion influence - the power they wield extends far past the power that private sector unions have, and they use that power to benefit themselves disproportionately and at the expense to the taxpayer the fiscal health of their communities.
We're talking about why voters didn't come around. Webb is weighing my report the morning after the election: Democrats won the smallest share of white voters in any congressional election since World War II.
"I've been warning them," Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. "I've been having discussions with our leadership ever since I've been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people ... I'm very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people."
Well, looks like Webb's going to move to the right. ffffffffffffffffffffff
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.
This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.
To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.
We're talking about why voters didn't come around. Webb is weighing my report the morning after the election: Democrats won the smallest share of white voters in any congressional election since World War II.
"I've been warning them," Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. "I've been having discussions with our leadership ever since I've been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people ... I'm very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people."
Well, looks like Webb's going to move to the right. ffffffffffffffffffffff
I thought this was pretty obvious when he wrote that op-ed about white people being angry that minorities are making progress.
We're talking about why voters didn't come around. Webb is weighing my report the morning after the election: Democrats won the smallest share of white voters in any congressional election since World War II.
"I've been warning them," Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. "I've been having discussions with our leadership ever since I've been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people ... I'm very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people."
Well, looks like Webb's going to move to the right. ffffffffffffffffffffff
I thought this was pretty obvious when he wrote that op-ed about white people being angry that minorities are making progress.
Not really. He's been all about the rural poor all along.
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.
This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.
To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.
Or that their influence through voting is sufficient to secure them reasonable employment terms, and they don't need collective bargaining on top of that.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.
This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.
To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.
Or that their influence through voting is sufficient to secure them reasonable employment terms, and they don't need collective bargaining on top of that.
Okay, now you're being silly. What's better, to have good employment terms that are contractually stipulated, or to just hope that you being a big voting bloc is enough to ensure that politicians don't screw you over? And this still doesn't explain why it's bad for the employees to have a say in who will be at the top level leadership of their organizations.
It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.
I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.
This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.
To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.
Or that their influence through voting is sufficient to secure them reasonable employment terms, and they don't need collective bargaining on top of that.
How does that make any sense?
I mean, they aren't the only ones voting, for one major thing. Are there supposed to be ballot initiatives on their retirement packages now or something?
Posts
I think I want this elaborated a little further, especially in the context of the current economic environment.
I believe he's referring to the glut of unions that are giving up some of their pay, benefits, and retirement in order to avoid mass layoffs. Mostly the auto industry I think.
-edit-
Let me see if I can find some concrete examples.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
California Teachers Union
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/11/09/1712865/california-employee-union-oks.html
US Autoworkers
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmgo2uKm_ZhHF8pQjGwpGNeBXohw?docId=CNG.d20ea2c6ca63a74962021e021debd7ad.131
Basically, unions are trying to keep their jobs at a living wage, and companies/govts can't afford it.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Unfortunately, the media and the GOP and such has spent DECADES demonizing Unions in the eyes of most people and thus they are no longer capable of performing this service.
Woo! Race to the bottom!
The middle class and lower are pretty well fucked in this country, and the fucking is only going to get harder and more frequent in the future. I'd lament this a little more if the middle class hadn't been complicit along the way towards its decimation.
Historically (in America since the 30's) unions have served as the vanguard of programs designed to bolster the middle class, reduce poverty, and reduce income inequality even when it is not in their members' direct and immediate interest to do so (and this is in addition to unions' playing field leveling effects). You still see this today with HCR and minimum wage increases, but their ability to advocate further has been severely compromised by the fact that they're currently fighting for their very existence.
But I could be rich someday! I don't want to screw myself over in the future by voting for my interests now!
Teachers sit around all day eating apples and hitting on students. Bunch of slackers.
Executive compensatrion on the otherhand is through the fucking roof, but we can't tax them. Oh no sir. That may affect jobs somehow.
Republicans: Small businesses need certainty!
Us: Taxes are already as low as Republicans want them. In fact, they're LOWER than even the Bush tax cuts. SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Republicans: You can't punish rich people with taxes because they create jobs! They won't invest otherwise!
Us: Unpatriotic rich people would rather the middle class starve than pay more in taxes!
I'm sure other people could word it more artfully, but the main thing is that, since we're clearly engaged in class warfare, it would make sense for us to gin up anger at the upper class for making off like bandits and putting the burden on the lower and middle classes.
You know, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not as politically astute as I should be.
But FUCK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I tend to believe it when it comes to state governments, but unless a company is on the verge of complete bankruptcy I assume they are lying.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Media: Why are Democrats so mean? Repeat ad nauseam.
No, the correct answer is thus: Prove that giving rich people more money creates jobs. Prove it.
They can't, because trickle-down economics doesn't work.
Actually, we did exactly that.
And public-sector unions shouldn't exist.
Rigorous Scholarship
If this country had decent worker protections and universal health care we wouldn't need unions
Like I said, other people can surely word it better than I did.
Also, I think it'd be less a problem with the media playing for their corporate masters than it would be with corporate Dems playing for their corporate masters. We can't have proper populist uprising/class warfare because the party that supposedly represents working people is led by conservaDems who are as interested in protecting the rich as Republicans are.
Not all unions are the same. The president of mine, for example, gets a whopping $2,500/year for his efforts, and the rest of the officers get $900/year.
When you say "public sector," do you mean government employees (postal workers, police officers, etc)? Or do you mean public employees (government employees PLUS teachers, university employees, etc)?
Oh, goody
:x
And I say this as a liberal and as a strong supporter of labor.
Oh yes I can, the private sector part. Public sector unions have completely out of proportion influence - the power they wield extends far past the power that private sector unions have, and they use that power to benefit themselves disproportionately and at the expense to the taxpayer the fiscal health of their communities.
So, they can go fuck themselves.
I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.
Why?
This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.
To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.
I thought this was pretty obvious when he wrote that op-ed about white people being angry that minorities are making progress.
Not really. He's been all about the rural poor all along.
Or that their influence through voting is sufficient to secure them reasonable employment terms, and they don't need collective bargaining on top of that.
Okay, now you're being silly. What's better, to have good employment terms that are contractually stipulated, or to just hope that you being a big voting bloc is enough to ensure that politicians don't screw you over? And this still doesn't explain why it's bad for the employees to have a say in who will be at the top level leadership of their organizations.
How does that make any sense?
I mean, they aren't the only ones voting, for one major thing. Are there supposed to be ballot initiatives on their retirement packages now or something?