Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
Dunno if this was directed towards me but it was a genuine question. Traditionally people are not compensated for working on a campaign unless they are in the upper tiers. This is the system as is. The only thing that has changed is Bernie's campaign unionized. So when spool cheers on an immolation of the new system it is not a straw man to ask if the system as it was traditionally, is preferable.
partly I'm cheering because I favor other candidates in the Dem primary, and partly I'm cheering because I think unionizing is a political stunt piggybacking itself on Bernie's campaign to serve goals other than Get Bernie Elected, and I want to see that stunt backfire.
I think the system as it was is not only preferable, it's probably inevitable and what's more, a well-paid national campaign will work against the broad goal of getting moneyed interests out of politics. That extra cash has to come from somewhere.
If the inevitable solution, as you call it, is poor people cannot participate in the political process then we should address that, no?
Quite the opposite, armies of poor people participate in the process and have done so forever - mostly young unconnected volunteers and low-paid regional managers. It's not that political volunteers are rich enough to work for free, it's that these folks have few or no obligations needing them to settle in one place and hold down a steady job. The jobs these folks are doing are unsteady and ephemeral by design, and are guaranteed to vanish.
Anyhow no, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep over whether it's possible to raise a family on the wage you make for a few months every leap year trying to get somebody elected President.
The people who work on campaigns are either doing it to gain connections and fill a resume, and/or because they believe in a cause.
There are very few people making “real money” on these campaigns.
zepherin on
+10
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
Dunno if this was directed towards me but it was a genuine question. Traditionally people are not compensated for working on a campaign unless they are in the upper tiers. This is the system as is. The only thing that has changed is Bernie's campaign unionized. So when spool cheers on an immolation of the new system it is not a straw man to ask if the system as it was traditionally, is preferable.
partly I'm cheering because I favor other candidates in the Dem primary, and partly I'm cheering because I think unionizing is a political stunt piggybacking itself on Bernie's campaign to serve goals other than Get Bernie Elected, and I want to see that stunt backfire.
I think the system as it was is not only preferable, it's probably inevitable and what's more, a well-paid national campaign will work against the broad goal of getting moneyed interests out of politics. That extra cash has to come from somewhere.
If the inevitable solution, as you call it, is poor people cannot participate in the political process then we should address that, no?
Quite the opposite, armies of poor people participate in the process and have done so forever - mostly young unconnected volunteers and low-paid regional managers. It's not that political volunteers are rich enough to work for free, it's that these folks have few or no obligations needing them to settle in one place and hold down a steady job. The jobs these folks are doing are unsteady and ephemeral by design, and are guaranteed to vanish.
Anyhow no, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep over whether it's possible to raise a family on the wage you make for a few months every leap year trying to get somebody elected President.
The impression I got from the article was that in this case, it was staff living in places like Iowa and still not being able to make ends meet, which is the basis of the $15/hr minimum wage argument. It is complicated by it being salary and the various places/states where they live, but the impression I got listening to Jon Favreau is that there's a lot of work involved at this field operative level.
If anything, this is an argument for UBI, but that's way outside the scope of a union trying to fight to improve the optics of their campaign's beneficiary.
Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
Dunno if this was directed towards me but it was a genuine question. Traditionally people are not compensated for working on a campaign unless they are in the upper tiers. This is the system as is. The only thing that has changed is Bernie's campaign unionized. So when spool cheers on an immolation of the new system it is not a straw man to ask if the system as it was traditionally, is preferable.
partly I'm cheering because I favor other candidates in the Dem primary, and partly I'm cheering because I think unionizing is a political stunt piggybacking itself on Bernie's campaign to serve goals other than Get Bernie Elected, and I want to see that stunt backfire.
I think the system as it was is not only preferable, it's probably inevitable and what's more, a well-paid national campaign will work against the broad goal of getting moneyed interests out of politics. That extra cash has to come from somewhere.
If the inevitable solution, as you call it, is poor people cannot participate in the political process then we should address that, no?
Quite the opposite, armies of poor people participate in the process and have done so forever - mostly young unconnected volunteers and low-paid regional managers. It's not that political volunteers are rich enough to work for free, it's that these folks have few or no obligations needing them to settle in one place and hold down a steady job. The jobs these folks are doing are unsteady and ephemeral by design, and are guaranteed to vanish.
Anyhow no, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep over whether it's possible to raise a family on the wage you make for a few months every leap year trying to get somebody elected President.
The impression I got from the article was that in this case, it was staff living in places like Iowa and still not being able to make ends meet, which is the basis of the $15/hr minimum wage argument. It is complicated by it being salary and the various places/states where they live, but the impression I got listening to Jon Favreau is that there's a lot of work involved at this field operative level.
If anything, this is an argument for UBI, but that's way outside the scope of a union trying to fight to improve the optics of their campaign's beneficiary.
The "15/hr" thing is intentionally obscuring the real situation.
These are salaried, and (from appearances) overtime-exempt field managers organizing groups of volunteers. They are complaining that because they work more than 40hrs and they're salary exempt workers, they're not really getting $15/hr when you work the math out.
No kidding folks, you didn't sign a contract for an hourly wage.
+6
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
Dunno if this was directed towards me but it was a genuine question. Traditionally people are not compensated for working on a campaign unless they are in the upper tiers. This is the system as is. The only thing that has changed is Bernie's campaign unionized. So when spool cheers on an immolation of the new system it is not a straw man to ask if the system as it was traditionally, is preferable.
partly I'm cheering because I favor other candidates in the Dem primary, and partly I'm cheering because I think unionizing is a political stunt piggybacking itself on Bernie's campaign to serve goals other than Get Bernie Elected, and I want to see that stunt backfire.
I think the system as it was is not only preferable, it's probably inevitable and what's more, a well-paid national campaign will work against the broad goal of getting moneyed interests out of politics. That extra cash has to come from somewhere.
If the inevitable solution, as you call it, is poor people cannot participate in the political process then we should address that, no?
Quite the opposite, armies of poor people participate in the process and have done so forever - mostly young unconnected volunteers and low-paid regional managers. It's not that political volunteers are rich enough to work for free, it's that these folks have few or no obligations needing them to settle in one place and hold down a steady job. The jobs these folks are doing are unsteady and ephemeral by design, and are guaranteed to vanish.
Anyhow no, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep over whether it's possible to raise a family on the wage you make for a few months every leap year trying to get somebody elected President.
The impression I got from the article was that in this case, it was staff living in places like Iowa and still not being able to make ends meet, which is the basis of the $15/hr minimum wage argument. It is complicated by it being salary and the various places/states where they live, but the impression I got listening to Jon Favreau is that there's a lot of work involved at this field operative level.
If anything, this is an argument for UBI, but that's way outside the scope of a union trying to fight to improve the optics of their campaign's beneficiary.
The "15/hr" thing is intentionally obscuring the real situation.
These are salaried, and (from appearances) overtime-exempt field managers organizing groups of volunteers. They are complaining that because they work more than 40hrs and they're salary exempt workers, they're not really getting $15/hr when you work the math out.
No kidding folks, you didn't sign a contract for an hourly wage.
Agreed, but there are also expectations. Was the contract signed noting that it would be 60hr/wk? Like, my contract is 37.5 + after-hours emergencies as needed. If I were pushing 60 hour weeks regularly I would try to get my contract amended as well.
Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
Dunno if this was directed towards me but it was a genuine question. Traditionally people are not compensated for working on a campaign unless they are in the upper tiers. This is the system as is. The only thing that has changed is Bernie's campaign unionized. So when spool cheers on an immolation of the new system it is not a straw man to ask if the system as it was traditionally, is preferable.
partly I'm cheering because I favor other candidates in the Dem primary, and partly I'm cheering because I think unionizing is a political stunt piggybacking itself on Bernie's campaign to serve goals other than Get Bernie Elected, and I want to see that stunt backfire.
I think the system as it was is not only preferable, it's probably inevitable and what's more, a well-paid national campaign will work against the broad goal of getting moneyed interests out of politics. That extra cash has to come from somewhere.
If the inevitable solution, as you call it, is poor people cannot participate in the political process then we should address that, no?
Quite the opposite, armies of poor people participate in the process and have done so forever - mostly young unconnected volunteers and low-paid regional managers. It's not that political volunteers are rich enough to work for free, it's that these folks have few or no obligations needing them to settle in one place and hold down a steady job. The jobs these folks are doing are unsteady and ephemeral by design, and are guaranteed to vanish.
Anyhow no, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep over whether it's possible to raise a family on the wage you make for a few months every leap year trying to get somebody elected President.
The impression I got from the article was that in this case, it was staff living in places like Iowa and still not being able to make ends meet, which is the basis of the $15/hr minimum wage argument. It is complicated by it being salary and the various places/states where they live, but the impression I got listening to Jon Favreau is that there's a lot of work involved at this field operative level.
If anything, this is an argument for UBI, but that's way outside the scope of a union trying to fight to improve the optics of their campaign's beneficiary.
The "15/hr" thing is intentionally obscuring the real situation.
These are salaried, and (from appearances) overtime-exempt field managers organizing groups of volunteers. They are complaining that because they work more than 40hrs and they're salary exempt workers, they're not really getting $15/hr when you work the math out.
No kidding folks, you didn't sign a contract for an hourly wage.
Agreed, but there are also expectations. Was the contract signed noting that it would be 60hr/wk? Like, my contract is 37.5 + after-hours emergencies as needed. If I were pushing 60 hour weeks regularly I would try to get my contract amended as well.
I actually agree with this. Here's the thing - I don't think these folks are necessarily wrong to try and squeeze more cash out of Bernie and I think I've been pretty upfront in saying I'm happy to see people drain him dry, the sooner the better. So I'm not really opposed to the idea, and in a different context I might even support trying to renegotiate, even via *pah* union activities.
In the context of a political campaign and the financial system on which it runs, it's madness, counterproductive madness that drives the org toward electoral failure.
Which, as I've said, is fine with me in this case.
spool32 on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
Dunno if this was directed towards me but it was a genuine question. Traditionally people are not compensated for working on a campaign unless they are in the upper tiers. This is the system as is. The only thing that has changed is Bernie's campaign unionized. So when spool cheers on an immolation of the new system it is not a straw man to ask if the system as it was traditionally, is preferable.
partly I'm cheering because I favor other candidates in the Dem primary, and partly I'm cheering because I think unionizing is a political stunt piggybacking itself on Bernie's campaign to serve goals other than Get Bernie Elected, and I want to see that stunt backfire.
I think the system as it was is not only preferable, it's probably inevitable and what's more, a well-paid national campaign will work against the broad goal of getting moneyed interests out of politics. That extra cash has to come from somewhere.
If the inevitable solution, as you call it, is poor people cannot participate in the political process then we should address that, no?
Quite the opposite, armies of poor people participate in the process and have done so forever - mostly young unconnected volunteers and low-paid regional managers. It's not that political volunteers are rich enough to work for free, it's that these folks have few or no obligations needing them to settle in one place and hold down a steady job. The jobs these folks are doing are unsteady and ephemeral by design, and are guaranteed to vanish.
Anyhow no, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep over whether it's possible to raise a family on the wage you make for a few months every leap year trying to get somebody elected President.
The impression I got from the article was that in this case, it was staff living in places like Iowa and still not being able to make ends meet, which is the basis of the $15/hr minimum wage argument. It is complicated by it being salary and the various places/states where they live, but the impression I got listening to Jon Favreau is that there's a lot of work involved at this field operative level.
If anything, this is an argument for UBI, but that's way outside the scope of a union trying to fight to improve the optics of their campaign's beneficiary.
The "15/hr" thing is intentionally obscuring the real situation.
These are salaried, and (from appearances) overtime-exempt field managers organizing groups of volunteers. They are complaining that because they work more than 40hrs and they're salary exempt workers, they're not really getting $15/hr when you work the math out.
No kidding folks, you didn't sign a contract for an hourly wage.
Agreed, but there are also expectations. Was the contract signed noting that it would be 60hr/wk? Like, my contract is 37.5 + after-hours emergencies as needed. If I were pushing 60 hour weeks regularly I would try to get my contract amended as well.
Many places that have their employees on salary do it to avoid paying overtime. It’s so rampant that in the MD are they have ambulance chaser ads for salaried workers.
Spool your argument doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that "campaigns shouldn't be unionized"
It's a much stronger argument for "campaigns should be publicly funded, exclusively"
It's out of scope for the topic but I'm not in theory opposed to public funding for all political candidates. As it stands today though, my theory is that a unionized campaign will suffer vs an equally funded non-union structure, purely because all funds not spent campaigning are, from the perspective of the electoral contest, wasted. This, I think, holds true regardless of where the cash comes from, but it's more true the more you limit available funds. Beto's hyperscaled self-organizing volunteer structure is the better model regardless of funding source (imo), followed closely by something that looks like Obama's. Unionized workforces that are tussling with management are wasting energy that should be directed at persuading voters. It's also intensely bad optics across the board, as you hand the ability to dictate your campaign theme over to people who can make you look bad at the drop of a hat, and then give them a strong incentive (get more money before donations dry up) to do so.
It's like handing a mob a truckload of tomatoes, then saying you'll pay $2 for every one that hits you.
It's out of scope as an in depth discussion for sure
The funding model of election campaigns grossly distorts the labor market for it and that's why it seems outwardly counterproductive that employees demand a living wage doing campaign work
If you truly believed in the cause you'd do it for free, you're just draining resources and that'll cause us to lose, etc etc
Campaign workers generally work 60-80 hr weeks because that's the job. I agree it should be a better situation, but the reality is that it's a stepping stone to either gov positions, non-profits or lobbying/influence firms. It's a crash course in every aspect of the electoral process with access to the connected.
As others have mentioned, it's by nature ephemeral, with a small skeleton getting permanent positions in parties/orgs and most going back to grad school or leveraging the experience to get jobs.
Perhaps I'm overly skeptical of the demands that younger workers forgo compensation "for the experience/exposure/access" given that their are credible studies suggesting that a suppressed wage early in your career results in permanently reduced lifetime earning potential.
Working for free and/or working a multiple of your salaried hours seems like exactly the kind of exploitation organized labor exists to combat.
+20
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Anyone claiming part of your compensation will come in the form of access or experience is trying to extract the tangible value of your work for an intangible reward that has no guarantees, and as such, is worthless on its own. Experience, exposure, and access are all fine things and good reasons to get a job if that job is otherwise acceptable. Something to put on your resume or connections to further your career can be PART of why you work somewhere, but that should only be acceptable if you are also being decently compensated for the work on its own. Things like unpaid internships are almost by definition a scam meant to extract value while giving vague promises in return instead of actual tangible return value. Even if their promises come true, it's still a raw deal because in a good system, those promises would have come true anyway, while you were being treated with dignity and being compensated the entire time. All jobs should have a living wage, and all work over 40 hours even if it is fully expected should receive higher compensation because every hour after 40 is an ever increasing burden on the employee (and, frankly, if it encouraged companies to budget more reasonably and make sure they have enough employees to get the work done without pushing people over 40 hours regularly, it would work out better for them in the long term as work quality begins to plummet after that point, generally)
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Anyone claiming part of your compensation will come in the form of access or experience is trying to extract the tangible value of your work for an intangible reward that has no guarantees, and as such, is worthless on its own. Experience, exposure, and access are all fine things and good reasons to get a job if that job is otherwise acceptable. Something to put on your resume or connections to further your career can be PART of why you work somewhere, but that should only be acceptable if you are also being decently compensated for the work on its own. Things like unpaid internships are almost by definition a scam meant to extract value while giving vague promises in return instead of actual tangible return value. Even if their promises come true, it's still a raw deal because in a good system, those promises would have come true anyway, while you were being treated with dignity and being compensated the entire time. All jobs should have a living wage, and all work over 40 hours even if it is fully expected should receive higher compensation because every hour after 40 is an ever increasing burden on the employee (and, frankly, if it encouraged companies to budget more reasonably and make sure they have enough employees to get the work done without pushing people over 40 hours regularly, it would work out better for them in the long term as work quality begins to plummet after that point, generally)
I keep hitting agree, but it only lets me do it once.
You work, you get paid enough to live in society, full stop. Companies that can’t afford to pay all their workers a living wage don’t deserve to keep doing business.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
It's reasonably important to note that elections aren't the only time of year this is a thing.
Hospitals rely on "volunteers" and most of the time they do work that should be paid. Cleaning beds, folding laundry, packing belongings, staffing visitor desks.
These are jobs that someone should be paid for, but we've perverted the idea and turned charity into a thing that should be done for profit generating enterprises.
Volunteers clean up forests and maintain hiking paths, because we can't be bothered to fund cleanup of the areas. Volunteering is always judged by it's virtue, never the money it saves on staffing.
Not all volunteering is charity. Being unpaid labor to generate revenue isn't virtuous. Being unpaid is stupid.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
If anyone working the campaign is comfortable working for less, they can donate their wages back to the campaign.
+10
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So here's my hangup. Paying $15/hour puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to campaigns willing to use slave labor enthusiastic volunteers. If this disadvantage results in pro $15/hr candidates always losing, we won't ever get $15/hr minimum wage (indexed to inflation, hopefully).
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
So here's my hangup. Paying $15/hour puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to campaigns willing to use slave labor enthusiastic volunteers. If this disadvantage results in pro $15/hr candidates always losing, we won't ever get $15/hr minimum wage (indexed to inflation, hopefully).
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
I'm going to call citation needed on that argument. You're arguing that paying campaign workers a proper wage puts a campaign at a disadvantage, but the argument for that is a nebulous handwaiving towards the idea that wages are a zero sum game that dismisses things like the concept that properly compensated staff is more effective, or the messaging power of "we eat our dog food".
So here's my hangup. Paying $15/hour puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to campaigns willing to use slave labor enthusiastic volunteers. If this disadvantage results in pro $15/hr candidates always losing, we won't ever get $15/hr minimum wage (indexed to inflation, hopefully).
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
I'm going to call citation needed on that argument. You're arguing that paying campaign workers a proper wage puts a campaign at a disadvantage, but the argument for that is a nebulous handwaiving towards the idea that wages are a zero sum game that dismisses things like the concept that properly compensated staff is more effective, or the messaging power of "we eat our dog food".
Sorry, it's mostly speculation on my part. We haven't ever had a unionized campaign staff paid a living wage before, so this would be the first case study, I suppose.
Bernie's campaign last time was largely crowdfund though, so I'd expect any loss in donator enthusiasm to hurt him more financially than paying staff a minimum wage.
Whether not working with his union would stomp on enthusiasm is a different matter though.
Guys, this isn't hard, given his historical positions. Spool feels that unions tend to overreach and be combatant with management, thereby causing the company/organization as a whole to struggle due to internal conflicts, ultimately leading them to be defeated by competing non-unionized companies/organizations. His argument is that this in-fighting is starting to happen.
He doesn't think an ideal workforce is one which isn't being compensated - he's saying that by having an organization which the workers can leverage as a group, it creates an internal adversarial stance which can self-sabotage. Most of us disagree that this is what happens/that this is what's happening.
No need to straw man the argument.
I love unions, and also think unionizing political campaigns is stupid, because there is no clash of goals between management and the workers. Both sides are trying to get the candidate elected. Instead, they should form a coop if they want to have a centralized worker organization where there is no distinction between management and labor.
So here's my hangup. Paying $15/hour puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to campaigns willing to use slave labor enthusiastic volunteers. If this disadvantage results in pro $15/hr candidates always losing, we won't ever get $15/hr minimum wage (indexed to inflation, hopefully).
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
I'm going to call citation needed on that argument. You're arguing that paying campaign workers a proper wage puts a campaign at a disadvantage, but the argument for that is a nebulous handwaiving towards the idea that wages are a zero sum game that dismisses things like the concept that properly compensated staff is more effective, or the messaging power of "we eat our dog food".
nebulous handwave ????
Hardly. I think it's an open question right now, because the only way wages aren't zero-sum is if the idea of how you pay your workers drives more donations than you spend in pay difference vs other campaigns, and that is definitely not proved at all. Reality here is that you and the rest of the pro-unionites in the thread are making just as broad and baseless an assumption.
We both have entirely untested arguments, and Bernie's campaign could answer the question for us - which is why I'm so pleased to see his workforce putting the screws to him... because I want it answered and, of course, because I think I'm right.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
So here's my hangup. Paying $15/hour puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to campaigns willing to use slave labor enthusiastic volunteers. If this disadvantage results in pro $15/hr candidates always losing, we won't ever get $15/hr minimum wage (indexed to inflation, hopefully).
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
I'm going to call citation needed on that argument. You're arguing that paying campaign workers a proper wage puts a campaign at a disadvantage, but the argument for that is a nebulous handwaiving towards the idea that wages are a zero sum game that dismisses things like the concept that properly compensated staff is more effective, or the messaging power of "we eat our dog food".
nebulous handwave ????
Hardly. I think it's an open question right now, because the only way wages aren't zero-sum is if the idea of how you pay your workers drives more donations than you spend in pay difference vs other campaigns, and that is definitely not proved at all. Reality here is that you and the rest of the pro-unionites in the thread are making just as broad and baseless an assumption.
We both have entirely untested arguments, and Bernie's campaign could answer the question for us - which is why I'm so pleased to see his workforce putting the screws to him... because I want it answered and, of course, because I think I'm right.
Paying your workers reasonable wages in a campaign could totally drive up donations. As well as increase enthusiasm for voters (which is important to drive up votes themselves), and increase the effectiveness of your actual workforce both via harder working current employees and being able to attract stronger talent from other places (and a stronger workforce would again translate into more votes, which is what the campaign's end goal is).
Do I have citations for any of that? No, pretty sure there are no citations on any side here . But there's a lot more at play here than you are trying to simplify it as. And who knows, maybe you're right in that none of those potential benefits outperform what you could get by spending that money elsewhere. Just don't try to reduce the other side too hard . There's a lot of positive effects higher wages can have on a campaign (or business) beyond just "donations".
So here's my hangup. Paying $15/hour puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to campaigns willing to use slave labor enthusiastic volunteers. If this disadvantage results in pro $15/hr candidates always losing, we won't ever get $15/hr minimum wage (indexed to inflation, hopefully).
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
I'm going to call citation needed on that argument. You're arguing that paying campaign workers a proper wage puts a campaign at a disadvantage, but the argument for that is a nebulous handwaiving towards the idea that wages are a zero sum game that dismisses things like the concept that properly compensated staff is more effective, or the messaging power of "we eat our dog food".
nebulous handwave ????
Hardly. I think it's an open question right now, because the only way wages aren't zero-sum is if the idea of how you pay your workers drives more donations than you spend in pay difference vs other campaigns, and that is definitely not proved at all. Reality here is that you and the rest of the pro-unionites in the thread are making just as broad and baseless an assumption.
We both have entirely untested arguments, and Bernie's campaign could answer the question for us - which is why I'm so pleased to see his workforce putting the screws to him... because I want it answered and, of course, because I think I'm right.
It is worth remembering that it isn't just Bernie's campaign that is unionized. We have a few different data points to work with on this one including Warren as another front runner. The fact that we have I think 4 campaigns, and this is the closest we have heard to unions causing a problem is very relevant. It certainly undercuts the idea that unionizing hurts campaign effectiveness at this early stage, and that having a union inevitably causes some sort of strife.
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
The union isn't causing a problem so much as forcing the campaign to acknowledge the problem with how campaigns are run and are "expected" to function--read: on underpaid/free labor, which is downright exploitative. If your organizational apparatus is raking in money and your workers feel as if they are (or indeed actually are) underpaid, it's only logical that your workforce is going to organize and rebel against the ignorance/incompetence/intransigence of management.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Why not? The purposes of a salary system are so that an employer can get more work for no more pay from their employees.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Salaries are theoretically fine but under mad max American capitalism theyre asking for labor theft
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Why not? The purposes of a salary system are so that an employer can get more work for no more pay from their employees.
The purpose of a salary system is to guarantee a level of stability and a relief from tracking hours for the employee. Worked 37 last week? Same pay as the week before when you worked 42. No "we have too many bodies today, go ahead and leave", no "you showed up 4 minutes late, cut 15 from your pay". Reliable income decoupled from hourly tracking is a godsend for people trying to run a family.
For myself, as somebody who desperately needed that stability, fuck hourly forever and fuck any organization trying to take it from me.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Why not? The purposes of a salary system are so that an employer can get more work for no more pay from their employees.
The purpose of a salary system is to guarantee a level of stability and a relief from tracking hours for the employee. Worked 37 last week? Same pay as the week before when you worked 42. No "we have too many bodies today, go ahead and leave", no "you showed up 4 minutes late, cut 15 from your pay". Reliable income decoupled from hourly tracking is a godsend for people trying to run a family.
For myself, as somebody who desperately needed that stability, fuck hourly forever and fuck any organization trying to take it from me.
The purpose of the salary system for the vast majority of businesses is to screw people over by ignoring the 40 hour cap. Being paid substandard wages for additional work stably is not an improvement.
Salary plus tracking hours so that work over 40 is additionally compensated seems like the best solution. It incentivizes the employer to hire more to avoid extra pay and compensates the employees for extra labor but gives flexibility in cases where sudden work appears. At the same time it allows that stable base income.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
I disagree. Campaigns are fundamentally different organizations to the normal business form, and because of that the minimum wage argument is a lot more muddied than a simple "hold him to his own ideology"
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Why not? The purposes of a salary system are so that an employer can get more work for no more pay from their employees.
This is a gross generalization. It is often used for positions where the hours would be difficult/impossible to track accurately.
When I was working a field position for an insurance company there wasn’t really an accurate way to track my hours aside from estimates. I’d travel to one client, do my thing, and then usually have an amount of downtime, potentially 1-2 hours, where I was in my car (so couldn’t do any work besides answering emails on my phone) waiting until it was time to head to my next client.
If I was paid straight hourly, I probably would have lost money as that would not have counted as on the clock time. My weekly schedule was semi-self paced as well. I had my monthly client visit quota along with whatever other projects I was working on, so some weeks may have been over 37.5 hours whereas others were below (even when counting the above mentioned downtime).
As Spool said, I also quite prefer the stability of knowing exactly how much my paycheck is every pay period.
There are absolutely valid reasons to opt for salary over hourly wages. But if actually paying people for their time and work becomes a "stalking horse for ending salaries" then your salary was too low to start with.
This is kind of a case study in externalizing costs onto the workforce except instead of maximizing corporate profits by withholding fair wages, it's in order to secure a single person elected office at the expense of any guarantee of future employment.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Why not? The purposes of a salary system are so that an employer can get more work for no more pay from their employees.
This is a gross generalization. It is often used for positions where the hours would be difficult/impossible to track accurately.
When I was working a field position for an insurance company there wasn’t really an accurate way to track my hours aside from estimates. I’d travel to one client, do my thing, and then usually have an amount of downtime, potentially 1-2 hours, where I was in my car (so couldn’t do any work besides answering emails on my phone) waiting until it was time to head to my next client.
If I was paid straight hourly, I probably would have lost money as that would not have counted as on the clock time. My weekly schedule was semi-self paced as well. I had my monthly client visit quota along with whatever other projects I was working on, so some weeks may have been over 37.5 hours whereas others were below (even when counting the above mentioned downtime).
As Spool said, I also quite prefer the stability of knowing exactly how much my paycheck is every pay period.
The solution to this problem is that you get paid for your hours spent in the car, because this is time dictated by the company you work for and not personal time.
And I think the number of salary jobs where this kind of justification would apply is miniscule when compared to the total number of salary jobs.
Also, to the stability argument, I would counter that as a full time employee you're guaranteed to get 40 hours of work a week, and that is your baseline salary. If you're depending on overtime for your basic living, you're either underpaid (we need to raise minimum wage) or you're living beyond your means.
I think salary pay greatly favors the employer over the employee, and I say that as a salary employee.
My wife's job is salaried but also outright forbids her from working more than 40 hours a week barring emergencies. If every salaried position were like that I'd be much more tolerant of the notion.
Posts
There are very few people making “real money” on these campaigns.
The impression I got from the article was that in this case, it was staff living in places like Iowa and still not being able to make ends meet, which is the basis of the $15/hr minimum wage argument. It is complicated by it being salary and the various places/states where they live, but the impression I got listening to Jon Favreau is that there's a lot of work involved at this field operative level.
If anything, this is an argument for UBI, but that's way outside the scope of a union trying to fight to improve the optics of their campaign's beneficiary.
The "15/hr" thing is intentionally obscuring the real situation.
These are salaried, and (from appearances) overtime-exempt field managers organizing groups of volunteers. They are complaining that because they work more than 40hrs and they're salary exempt workers, they're not really getting $15/hr when you work the math out.
No kidding folks, you didn't sign a contract for an hourly wage.
Agreed, but there are also expectations. Was the contract signed noting that it would be 60hr/wk? Like, my contract is 37.5 + after-hours emergencies as needed. If I were pushing 60 hour weeks regularly I would try to get my contract amended as well.
I actually agree with this. Here's the thing - I don't think these folks are necessarily wrong to try and squeeze more cash out of Bernie and I think I've been pretty upfront in saying I'm happy to see people drain him dry, the sooner the better. So I'm not really opposed to the idea, and in a different context I might even support trying to renegotiate, even via *pah* union activities.
In the context of a political campaign and the financial system on which it runs, it's madness, counterproductive madness that drives the org toward electoral failure.
Which, as I've said, is fine with me in this case.
It's a much stronger argument for "campaigns should be publicly funded, exclusively"
It's out of scope for the topic but I'm not in theory opposed to public funding for all political candidates. As it stands today though, my theory is that a unionized campaign will suffer vs an equally funded non-union structure, purely because all funds not spent campaigning are, from the perspective of the electoral contest, wasted. This, I think, holds true regardless of where the cash comes from, but it's more true the more you limit available funds. Beto's hyperscaled self-organizing volunteer structure is the better model regardless of funding source (imo), followed closely by something that looks like Obama's. Unionized workforces that are tussling with management are wasting energy that should be directed at persuading voters. It's also intensely bad optics across the board, as you hand the ability to dictate your campaign theme over to people who can make you look bad at the drop of a hat, and then give them a strong incentive (get more money before donations dry up) to do so.
It's like handing a mob a truckload of tomatoes, then saying you'll pay $2 for every one that hits you.
The funding model of election campaigns grossly distorts the labor market for it and that's why it seems outwardly counterproductive that employees demand a living wage doing campaign work
If you truly believed in the cause you'd do it for free, you're just draining resources and that'll cause us to lose, etc etc
As others have mentioned, it's by nature ephemeral, with a small skeleton getting permanent positions in parties/orgs and most going back to grad school or leveraging the experience to get jobs.
Working for free and/or working a multiple of your salaried hours seems like exactly the kind of exploitation organized labor exists to combat.
I keep hitting agree, but it only lets me do it once.
You work, you get paid enough to live in society, full stop. Companies that can’t afford to pay all their workers a living wage don’t deserve to keep doing business.
Hospitals rely on "volunteers" and most of the time they do work that should be paid. Cleaning beds, folding laundry, packing belongings, staffing visitor desks.
These are jobs that someone should be paid for, but we've perverted the idea and turned charity into a thing that should be done for profit generating enterprises.
Volunteers clean up forests and maintain hiking paths, because we can't be bothered to fund cleanup of the areas. Volunteering is always judged by it's virtue, never the money it saves on staffing.
Not all volunteering is charity. Being unpaid labor to generate revenue isn't virtuous. Being unpaid is stupid.
As someone pointed out, everyone is out of a campaign job the minute the election is over, and everyone is then competing for a limited number of transition team jobs and positions in the administration. It's an awful lot to ask people to work for artificially suppressed wages when there's no carrot to dangle of a future position.
This doesn't have to be adversarial between the candidate/campaign management and unionized workers, it's contract work for hire covering a finite duration and that should be the end of it. That the contract isn't bargained fairly is the point where unions can step in and ensure that there is a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and limits on things like unpaid overtime.
Most white collar workers lucky enough to have a contract (or those who explicitly work as contractors, and not in the forced-to-file-1099-so-we-don't-owe-you-benefits sense which games the system) enjoy these benefits. There's no reason to begrudge any other worker the same, regardless of the industry.
Universal unionization for campaigns, combined with actual spending limits based on public funding, solves all your perverse incentives. Unlike open ended employment there's no issue with seniority or benefits creep since the employment term is defined. Every campaign gets the same funds and the same rules for paying workers. How they allocate the remaining funds is up to them. Hire more boots on the ground? Sure. Pay more for ads? Go for it. Hold events and rallies? Fine. Just don't exploit the people trying to get you elected
I am skeptical that the campaign staff didn't know this was a position requiring well over 40 hours weeks. I mean did that surprise any of us here? I didn't surprise me, and I've never worked on a campaign.. That's just the nature of campaigning. Public funding doesn't solve that because it is a task with an unknown amount of work required. You think every Hillary staffer in PA/MI/WI didn't think, man if we had all just worked an extra couple Saturdays/Sundays...?
Also you missed, chock your campaign full of volunteers whose situations allow them to work full time without any income. Or the various superPACs.
Of course they knew. Their point is that if Bernie is going to run on a $15/hr minimum wage, he should be holding his own campaign to that. Which is hard to argue with.
It's the same thing with Super PACs. I wish they didn't exist, but you have to use them if you're ever going to accumulate enough power to get rid of them.
I'm going to call citation needed on that argument. You're arguing that paying campaign workers a proper wage puts a campaign at a disadvantage, but the argument for that is a nebulous handwaiving towards the idea that wages are a zero sum game that dismisses things like the concept that properly compensated staff is more effective, or the messaging power of "we eat our dog food".
Sorry, it's mostly speculation on my part. We haven't ever had a unionized campaign staff paid a living wage before, so this would be the first case study, I suppose.
Whether not working with his union would stomp on enthusiasm is a different matter though.
I love unions, and also think unionizing political campaigns is stupid, because there is no clash of goals between management and the workers. Both sides are trying to get the candidate elected. Instead, they should form a coop if they want to have a centralized worker organization where there is no distinction between management and labor.
nebulous handwave ????
Hardly. I think it's an open question right now, because the only way wages aren't zero-sum is if the idea of how you pay your workers drives more donations than you spend in pay difference vs other campaigns, and that is definitely not proved at all. Reality here is that you and the rest of the pro-unionites in the thread are making just as broad and baseless an assumption.
We both have entirely untested arguments, and Bernie's campaign could answer the question for us - which is why I'm so pleased to see his workforce putting the screws to him... because I want it answered and, of course, because I think I'm right.
Stalking horse for "end salary positions" right here. No thanks.
Paying your workers reasonable wages in a campaign could totally drive up donations. As well as increase enthusiasm for voters (which is important to drive up votes themselves), and increase the effectiveness of your actual workforce both via harder working current employees and being able to attract stronger talent from other places (and a stronger workforce would again translate into more votes, which is what the campaign's end goal is).
Do I have citations for any of that? No, pretty sure there are no citations on any side here
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It is worth remembering that it isn't just Bernie's campaign that is unionized. We have a few different data points to work with on this one including Warren as another front runner. The fact that we have I think 4 campaigns, and this is the closest we have heard to unions causing a problem is very relevant. It certainly undercuts the idea that unionizing hurts campaign effectiveness at this early stage, and that having a union inevitably causes some sort of strife.
Why not? The purposes of a salary system are so that an employer can get more work for no more pay from their employees.
Salaries are theoretically fine but under mad max American capitalism theyre asking for labor theft
The purpose of a salary system is to guarantee a level of stability and a relief from tracking hours for the employee. Worked 37 last week? Same pay as the week before when you worked 42. No "we have too many bodies today, go ahead and leave", no "you showed up 4 minutes late, cut 15 from your pay". Reliable income decoupled from hourly tracking is a godsend for people trying to run a family.
For myself, as somebody who desperately needed that stability, fuck hourly forever and fuck any organization trying to take it from me.
The purpose of the salary system for the vast majority of businesses is to screw people over by ignoring the 40 hour cap. Being paid substandard wages for additional work stably is not an improvement.
I disagree. Campaigns are fundamentally different organizations to the normal business form, and because of that the minimum wage argument is a lot more muddied than a simple "hold him to his own ideology"
This is a gross generalization. It is often used for positions where the hours would be difficult/impossible to track accurately.
When I was working a field position for an insurance company there wasn’t really an accurate way to track my hours aside from estimates. I’d travel to one client, do my thing, and then usually have an amount of downtime, potentially 1-2 hours, where I was in my car (so couldn’t do any work besides answering emails on my phone) waiting until it was time to head to my next client.
If I was paid straight hourly, I probably would have lost money as that would not have counted as on the clock time. My weekly schedule was semi-self paced as well. I had my monthly client visit quota along with whatever other projects I was working on, so some weeks may have been over 37.5 hours whereas others were below (even when counting the above mentioned downtime).
As Spool said, I also quite prefer the stability of knowing exactly how much my paycheck is every pay period.
The solution to this problem is that you get paid for your hours spent in the car, because this is time dictated by the company you work for and not personal time.
And I think the number of salary jobs where this kind of justification would apply is miniscule when compared to the total number of salary jobs.
Also, to the stability argument, I would counter that as a full time employee you're guaranteed to get 40 hours of work a week, and that is your baseline salary. If you're depending on overtime for your basic living, you're either underpaid (we need to raise minimum wage) or you're living beyond your means.
I think salary pay greatly favors the employer over the employee, and I say that as a salary employee.