The ruling on Friday by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Juan Colas stems from a challenge by unions representing Madison school teachers and Milwaukee city employees. It was unclear what immediate impact his ruling would have.Read the rest of this post...
Colas ruled that eliminating collective bargaining rights for municipal employees including teachers violated the workers' right to free speech, association and equal protection.
He also ruled that the law's requirement that Milwaukee city workers make pension contributions violated a home-rule provision in the state constitution.
Several provisions "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association" in violation of their free speech and association rights, Colas found.
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Judges knocks down Scott Walker's assault on unions
The Republicans are whining that this is just another activist judge, but that's only because the judge ruled against them. Good news, for now.
Five liberal pundits repeat RW anti-teacher talking points
What's happening to education in this country is one of the biggest under-the-radar stories of the new century. It gets some attention, then it doesn't, and still the movement to totally transform public schools marches on.
I'd like to make several points here. The first is this — that many so-called "liberals" are on board with the corrupt "education reform" movement. You'd think they know'd better, but they seem to not.
(Wonder why? Me too. See the Takeaways below for some thoughts on that.)
Here's from Alternet, a great find by Sarah Jaffe (my emphasis and reparagraphing):
Takeaways:
■ First, it's about the Benjamins (the money); in particular, the Benjamins collected as tax support for public education. School "reformers" want that money spent only on their kids. "Accountability" is just the cover story.
■ Second, left-support of breaking the CTU strike plays to what Chris Hayes calls "the meritocracy" and its interests. I call this the "liberal" version of the ultimately-race-based class war.
Said differently, high-dollar Republican voters don't want their kids in public schools with non-biblicals — so they home-school and create "Christian" academies.
High-dollar Democratic voters don't want their kids sullied and held back by inner-city types (of all types), so they create charter schools and places like the Chicago Lab School, where Rahm Emanuel sends his own kids.
Both groups want public school money diverted to their separatist school systems. Thus, both want "reform."
■ Third, ask yourself, where does that leave the public schools? More particularly, what then is their mission?
In a phrase, public schools become wage slave prep for those soon-to-be-nonexistent factory jobs.
Here's lawyer and Chicago school parent Matt Farmer making the case against this dual educational track. In Chicago, the perps are Penny Pritzker and Rahm Emanuel, both with ties to ... Barack Obama (h/t Sam Seder's Majority Report for the clip):
Your (unstolen) tax dollars at work. This is what Our Betters in Blue have in mind for you and your kids. (Our Betters in Red add those ugly identity issues to the mix, like vagina-control and religious orthodoxy.)
■ For a nice factual analysis, read this by our own Matt Browner Hamlin. Nails it. Keep his points in mind when listening to the so-called liberals who what to bust this strike.
■ Finally, do you wonder why Chicago's other unions haven't shut down the town in support? Could it be the twin devils of the modern union movement: (1) the testosterone divide and (2) co-option by Democratic leadership?
Worth considering. Either way, I agree with Ms. Jaffe's initial assessment. This is "one of the most important labor actions in a generation."
Which way will it go? Will you help if you can?
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
I'd like to make several points here. The first is this — that many so-called "liberals" are on board with the corrupt "education reform" movement. You'd think they know'd better, but they seem to not.
(Wonder why? Me too. See the Takeaways below for some thoughts on that.)
Here's from Alternet, a great find by Sarah Jaffe (my emphasis and reparagraphing):
5 Liberal Pundits Repeating Right-Wing Teacher-Bashing Talking PointsThese are the "liberals" who've been fighting the teacher's strike. The article itself details their sins far more fully that what's below.
Chicago's teacher strike is shaping up to be one of the most important labor actions in a generation. So why are people who consider themselves progressives siding with the bosses?
Chicago's teacher strike may turn out to be the most important one in a generation, as teachers stand up to a corporate-backed education reform regime that stresses testing and firing teachers as a form of “accountability” while continuing to refuse to invest real money in making educational opportunities equal for all students.
The so-called education reform movement wants high-stakes tests that students take yearly to be used to evaluate teachers and weed out the "bad" ones, and pushes money into charter schools that are privately owned and don't have union teachers.
Under the guise of "accountability" for teachers and schools, reformers put taxpayer dollars into the hands of private investors despite the charter schools' negligible results when it comes to actually improving education.
The movement has been particularly pernicious because it's crept inside the heart of the Democratic party and taken hold of politicians and commentators who profess to be on the side of working people, but end up bashing teachers' unions.
1. Nicholas Kristof. The New York Times' columnist is celebrated for his trips into Global South countries to report heartwrenching stories of women; he's lauded as an activist and a human rights advocate. But when it comes to women and workers fighting for their rights closer to home, he seems to have a big blind spot. ...
Kristof [argues] for “bottom-third” teachers not to have job protections, then [suggests] that we should listen to teachers for ideas on how to weed out that bottom third. ...
2. Joe Nocera. Nocera, also at the Times, tries to soften his critique of the teachers' strike by throwing them a bone midway through his column. ... But where you got your next sentence is completely unclear. “On the other hand, the status quo, which is what the Chicago teachers want, is clearly unacceptable.” ...
3. Dylan Matthews. Over at Wonkblog, founded and headed by liberal darling Ezra Klein, Dylan Matthews went two for two, first arguing that teachers' strikes hurt student achievement (measured, of course, by those magical test scores) and then churning out a charming little piece arguing over teachers' wages. ...
4. Matt Yglesias. Yglesias' contribution, at Slate, to the teachers' union-busting is one of the most unintentionally ironic things I've ever seen. Just a year and a couple of months out from the biggest labor uprising in decades over the rights of public employees, Yglesias is actually arguing that teachers' unions suck because they are public employees. ...
5. Jacob Weisberg. It might be easier to understand Yglesias' position on striking teachers when you look at his boss's tweets on the subject. Weisberg, editor-in-chief at Slate, is the most gleeful yet:Meet the perps, supposedly on our side.
Rooting for Rahm to make the Chicago Teachers' Union sorry for this inexcusable strike. Students in class fewest hours of any big city.It's disconcerting to see such clear desire for punishment of working people (by a multimillionaire politician whose best friends are on Wall Street no less). ...
Takeaways:
■ First, it's about the Benjamins (the money); in particular, the Benjamins collected as tax support for public education. School "reformers" want that money spent only on their kids. "Accountability" is just the cover story.
■ Second, left-support of breaking the CTU strike plays to what Chris Hayes calls "the meritocracy" and its interests. I call this the "liberal" version of the ultimately-race-based class war.
Said differently, high-dollar Republican voters don't want their kids in public schools with non-biblicals — so they home-school and create "Christian" academies.
High-dollar Democratic voters don't want their kids sullied and held back by inner-city types (of all types), so they create charter schools and places like the Chicago Lab School, where Rahm Emanuel sends his own kids.
Both groups want public school money diverted to their separatist school systems. Thus, both want "reform."
■ Third, ask yourself, where does that leave the public schools? More particularly, what then is their mission?
In a phrase, public schools become wage slave prep for those soon-to-be-nonexistent factory jobs.
Here's lawyer and Chicago school parent Matt Farmer making the case against this dual educational track. In Chicago, the perps are Penny Pritzker and Rahm Emanuel, both with ties to ... Barack Obama (h/t Sam Seder's Majority Report for the clip):
Your (unstolen) tax dollars at work. This is what Our Betters in Blue have in mind for you and your kids. (Our Betters in Red add those ugly identity issues to the mix, like vagina-control and religious orthodoxy.)
■ For a nice factual analysis, read this by our own Matt Browner Hamlin. Nails it. Keep his points in mind when listening to the so-called liberals who what to bust this strike.
■ Finally, do you wonder why Chicago's other unions haven't shut down the town in support? Could it be the twin devils of the modern union movement: (1) the testosterone divide and (2) co-option by Democratic leadership?
Worth considering. Either way, I agree with Ms. Jaffe's initial assessment. This is "one of the most important labor actions in a generation."
Which way will it go? Will you help if you can?
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Teachers are underpaid in Chicago and US overall
A lot of the contrived outrage around the Chicago Teachers Union strike is around the critics' false belief that the teachers are overpaid and greedy. You've probably heard that CTU teachers are paid an average of $70,000 and the union rejected a 16% pay raise.
Zaid Jilani has reported that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pay for a Chicago teacher is only $56,720. And about rejecting that big raise, in fact "The district offered a cost-of-living raise of 2 percent a year for four years, which the union said was unacceptable — especially after Mayor Rahm Emanuel last year canceled a previously negotiated 4 percent raise."
Jilani also reports that the teachers are fighting against generally bad conditions, including huge class size, crumbling schools with no libraries, no air conditioning, and limited access to the arts and music for students.
So in the midst of a lot of conservative misinformation about Chicago's overpaid teachers, it's worth noting, as Dean Baker does, that until very recently, we'd been lead to believe that salaries of $250,000 or even up to a million dollars a year were considered working class.
While Chicago's teachers are obviously underpaid in comparison to Freddie Mac's Emanuel and Morgan Stanley's Bowles, a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows American teachers are also very underpaid compared to their peers in the developed world.
The experience for Chicago's school children is not a good one, given the poor conditions they are asked to attempt to learn in. The Chicago Teachers Union is on strike to try to get guarantees from the school system to address these concerns and to make sure teachers have pay worthy of the important job of securing the future generations of American leaders.
Compared to the destructive economic actions of highly paid individuals like Rahm Emanuel and Erskine Bowles, it hardly seems controversial for Chicago's teachers to be paid a fair wage, under a fair contract. Read the rest of this post...
Zaid Jilani has reported that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pay for a Chicago teacher is only $56,720. And about rejecting that big raise, in fact "The district offered a cost-of-living raise of 2 percent a year for four years, which the union said was unacceptable — especially after Mayor Rahm Emanuel last year canceled a previously negotiated 4 percent raise."
Jilani also reports that the teachers are fighting against generally bad conditions, including huge class size, crumbling schools with no libraries, no air conditioning, and limited access to the arts and music for students.
So in the midst of a lot of conservative misinformation about Chicago's overpaid teachers, it's worth noting, as Dean Baker does, that until very recently, we'd been lead to believe that salaries of $250,000 or even up to a million dollars a year were considered working class.
Since the Chicago school teachers went out on strike Monday, many political figures have tried to convince the public that their $70,000 average annual pay [sic] is excessive. This is peculiar, since many of the same people had been arguing that the families earning over $250,000, who would be subject to higher tax rates under President Obama's tax proposal, are actually part of the struggling middle class. They now want to convince us that a household with two Chicago public school teachers, who together earn less than 60 percent of President Obama's cutoff, have more money than they should.Baker also gets specific, noting that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made over $274,000 at an apparent no show job at Freddie Mac after he left the White House, while noted austerian Erskine Bowles made $335,000 at Morgan Stanley the year his investment bank had to be bailed out to prevent its failure.
While Chicago's teachers are obviously underpaid in comparison to Freddie Mac's Emanuel and Morgan Stanley's Bowles, a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows American teachers are also very underpaid compared to their peers in the developed world.
The average primary-school teacher in the United States earns about 67 percent of the salary of a average college-educated worker in the United States. The comparable figure is 82 percent across the overall O.E.C.D. For teachers in lower secondary school (roughly the years Americans would call middle school), the ratio in the United States is 69 percent, compared to 85 percent across the O.E.C.D. The average upper secondary teacher earns 72 percent of the salary for the average college-educated worker in the United States, compared to 90 percent for the overall O.E.C.D.One would think that if we wanted the US to be competitive with other countries in the developed world, we would want to have the best teachers, paid competitively with other countries' teachers.
American teachers, by the way, spend a lot more time teaching than do their counterparts in most other developed countries
The experience for Chicago's school children is not a good one, given the poor conditions they are asked to attempt to learn in. The Chicago Teachers Union is on strike to try to get guarantees from the school system to address these concerns and to make sure teachers have pay worthy of the important job of securing the future generations of American leaders.
Compared to the destructive economic actions of highly paid individuals like Rahm Emanuel and Erskine Bowles, it hardly seems controversial for Chicago's teachers to be paid a fair wage, under a fair contract. Read the rest of this post...
Labor has mixed reactions as Democratic Convention approaches
This year's DNC (Democratic National Convention) is in North Carolina — a right-to-work state.
And the key Democratic hotels — Hilton Charlotte Center City and the Westin Charlotte, Dem party headquarters and their base of operations, respectively — are non-union hotels. (More here: read just the first sentence.)
Gives one major pause.
But let's not ask how we feel. Let's ask how labor feels, the rank-and-file people.
Rank-and-file labor — you know, the part of labor that's not in the pocket of national labor leaders, who are themselves in the pocket of the Democratic party, which is happily snuggled in next to the wallet of labor's biggest enemies, Mr. and Ms. Plutocrat (Our Betters).
Those people, boots-on-the-ground labor, are not "going gentle" into that good night. I'm starting to see more and more of this, from lower down in the labor movement.
Read for both facts and tone; start with the title (h/t a friend in the labor movement, via email):
Note this:
Here's his bottom line:
I'll just point you to these two posts in the Progressive Coalition series:
I know — progressives really are grassroots, and the Tea Party is at least in part a Koch Bros Joint, well financed and corralled. Still, this is the only path to victory, as I see it, short of serious chaos as things really do fall apart.
Let's close by echoing the writer above. If Obama loses this election, these betrayals — yes, betrayals — will be the reason.
And if the labor movement disappears, it will have only itself to blame:
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
And the key Democratic hotels — Hilton Charlotte Center City and the Westin Charlotte, Dem party headquarters and their base of operations, respectively — are non-union hotels. (More here: read just the first sentence.)
Gives one major pause.
But let's not ask how we feel. Let's ask how labor feels, the rank-and-file people.
Rank-and-file labor — you know, the part of labor that's not in the pocket of national labor leaders, who are themselves in the pocket of the Democratic party, which is happily snuggled in next to the wallet of labor's biggest enemies, Mr. and Ms. Plutocrat (Our Betters).
Those people, boots-on-the-ground labor, are not "going gentle" into that good night. I'm starting to see more and more of this, from lower down in the labor movement.
Read for both facts and tone; start with the title (h/t a friend in the labor movement, via email):
Wake Up and Smell the Hypocrisy!Yep. The h-word. Now from the piece (my emphasis and a fair amount of reparagraphing):
BOHICA (bend over, here it comes again), an old military acronym, that is what comes to mind as the November 2012 election draw ever closer."Lackluster labor policies" — how polite. Put an R context next to that list of betrayals and the phrase would be "successful anti-unionism."
The upcoming Democratic National Convention, you know, "the Party of the Labor movement" is being held in anti-union Charlotte, N.C.
In early September, the Democratic Party leadership, the folks that failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act [EFCA], failed to pass the Fair Paycheck Act, managed to avoid filling over 100 vacant Federal Judgeships, avoided the fights against the anti-union GOP in Wisconsin and across the USA like the plague, and avoided the Occupy Wall Street movement with alacrity, will meet to reaffirm their support for President Obama and his lackluster labor policies.
Note this:
The Non-union hotels; Hilton Charlotte Center City and the Westin Charlotte, will be the headquarters and base of operations for the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic National Committee, and Obama for America.The writer then discusses the lack of enthusiasm — with excellent sourcing, by the way — for Obama and Democrats in general, among labor rank-and-file and some local leaders.
On Thursday, September 6, 2012, President Obama will accept the nomination of the DNC at Bank of America Stadium. Somehow this says it all.
Here's his bottom line:
[W]e keep throwing good money after bad in support of Democrats that throw us under the bus so consistently, I wish I had gone to diesel mechanic school. ...Now me. We cannot go on like this. "Only losing less" means ending the game 40–6 instead of 80–6. Some path to "victory" — this is how coaches get fired.
[T]here is much disillusionment with the Democratic Party, with many union members seeing little difference between the rich corporate contributors that control the Dems and the other rich corporate moguls that control the GOP. ...
[O]nce again, the choice is clear, the road is hard, and yes, even if we win, we really only lose less.
I won't give the President one dime of my hard earned money, nor will I ask my union sisters and brothers to do so, but I will show up and vote for a second term for President Obama and will continue to lobby everyone else to do so as well. I just won't be happy about it.
I'll just point you to these two posts in the Progressive Coalition series:
- Four Rules for Managing an Effective Progressive Coalition
- Goals of an Effective Progressive Coalition: Move the ball. Guard the progressive frontier.
Rule 3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals. ...Progressives will never win by serving the Democratic Party. Progressives will only win by using the Democratic Party the way the "Tea Party" uses the Republican Party.
[E]xamples abound where national Democrats and the party as a whole — dominated as it is by Rubinites and NeoLiberals, Blue Dogs (however rebranded) and conservatives — too often betray progressive values and goals.
I know — progressives really are grassroots, and the Tea Party is at least in part a Koch Bros Joint, well financed and corralled. Still, this is the only path to victory, as I see it, short of serious chaos as things really do fall apart.
Let's close by echoing the writer above. If Obama loses this election, these betrayals — yes, betrayals — will be the reason.
And if the labor movement disappears, it will have only itself to blame:
[I]t's a long-term survival problem. If unions and progressives don't get off their Dem-serving kiesters and force concessions from the NeoLibs (yes, Mr. Obama, I'm looking straight at you), the only union members will be found in museums — next to your civil rights. ...Progressively yours,
[Playing] to win. Unions used to do that I hear, back in the day.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
Union housekeepers announce global boycott of Hyatt
Via email and votehyattworst.org (my emphasis and paragraphing):
In case you've forgotten, Rule 2 of an Effective Progressive Coalition:
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
Dear Friends,I offer this in the interest of keeping you well informed. This is happening, with or without you. If you click, it happens with you.
Housekeepers nationwide need your help. ... [T]his week Hyatt housekeepers are launching a global boycott of Hyatt. Please take two seconds to support them by voting Hyatt the Worst Hotel Employer in America.
Why is Hyatt the worst?
Worldwide, we are calling on five million people to take a stand and Vote Hyatt Worst. By joining together, we will urge Hyatt to change its ways.
- Hyatt has replaced career housekeepers with temp workers earning minimum wage.
- Hyatt housekeepers have heavy workloads that can lead to debilitating pain and injuries.
- Hyatt has fired women shortly after they have spoken out about abuse and indignities at work.
- And Hyatt even turned heat lamps on workers protesting these conditions during a brutal Chicago heat wave.
In case you've forgotten, Rule 2 of an Effective Progressive Coalition:
Members of the Coalition have each others' back.Not that you would forget...
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
Five Questions: Sarah Burris, youth and labor activist
This is the final Five Questions interview. This time I sat down with Sarah Burris, someone who, though young, has already had quite a bit of experience as a progressive organizer and is quite accomplished. Sarah has worked with youth organizing and with labor organizations.
Like others interviewed in this series, she is cautiously optimistic — but falls squarely in the camp of seeing the country getting worse before better.
Her optimism is based on demographics, that the most retrograde elements of the country are more prevalent among older voters. Whether or not you agree, she's not the only person with this analysis.
Her hand-crafted fifth question was about Wisconsin — Why did Scott Walker win?
A note about the audio. We had originally planned to talk on the final day of Netroots Nation, where all the other interviews were conducted, then developed a last-minute scheduling conflict.
As a make-up, we did this one via Skype a few days later, and the Internet betrayed us. The actual recording occurred at Sarah's end, so her voice is clear; mine is less so, with Skype-drops and the occasional underwater sound more prevalent that I would wish.
Since the focus of the interview is Sarah and her responses, I decided to post this with some editing to minimize the problems. While I can delete the beeps, there's no way to add back what Skype has lost. I hope this works for you.
Five Questions: Sarah Burris with Gaius Publius, recorded shortly after Netroots Nation 2012. Enjoy:
The full list of "Five Questions" interviews includes the following. Links to names will take you to previously-published interviews.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
Like others interviewed in this series, she is cautiously optimistic — but falls squarely in the camp of seeing the country getting worse before better.
Her optimism is based on demographics, that the most retrograde elements of the country are more prevalent among older voters. Whether or not you agree, she's not the only person with this analysis.
Her hand-crafted fifth question was about Wisconsin — Why did Scott Walker win?
A note about the audio. We had originally planned to talk on the final day of Netroots Nation, where all the other interviews were conducted, then developed a last-minute scheduling conflict.
As a make-up, we did this one via Skype a few days later, and the Internet betrayed us. The actual recording occurred at Sarah's end, so her voice is clear; mine is less so, with Skype-drops and the occasional underwater sound more prevalent that I would wish.
Since the focus of the interview is Sarah and her responses, I decided to post this with some editing to minimize the problems. While I can delete the beeps, there's no way to add back what Skype has lost. I hope this works for you.
Five Questions: Sarah Burris with Gaius Publius, recorded shortly after Netroots Nation 2012. Enjoy:
The full list of "Five Questions" interviews includes the following. Links to names will take you to previously-published interviews.
- Alan Grayson, former (and perhaps future) U.S. Congressman
- Marcy Wheeler, of emptywheel.net
- Cliff Schecter, who comments regularly with Sam Seder at Majority.fm among many other places
- Tom Tomorrow, cartoonist with DailyKos and This Modern World
- Alex Lawson of StrengthenSocialSecurity.org
- Josh Orton, with Russ Feingold's Progressives United
- Frances Causey, producer–director of Heist, the documentary
- Chris Pearson, a Progressive Party Vermont state legislator
- Susan Smith, Progressive Caucus chair of the Florida Democratic Party
- Sarah Burris, labor activist and progressive youth organizer
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
Unions demand Change.org worker rights policy
Yesterday Ryan Grim broke a story in HuffPost Hill that a number of labor unions, including "AFT, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, CWA, IBEW and the Steelworkers," had written a letter to Change.org, asking the company to have a clear policy about not working with organizations who advocated union busting. This followed a pressure campaign lead by the American Federation of Teachers to have Change.org stop working with the union-busting organizations Students First and Stand for Children.
I've received a copy of the unions' letter to Change.org Founder and CEO Ben Rattray. Of note is the unions' strong demand for a clear policy from Change regarding their stand on workers' rights:
Last night Grim quoted a spokesperson for Change.org as saying, "As we've noted, Change.org is undertaking a company-wide process to evaluate and clarify our client policy." They also said that Change plans on reaching out to "thousands" of "stakeholders" for their input into what their policy should be. Hopefully this process is prompt.
Clearly unions representing workers affected by anti-teacher campaigns taking place on Change.org are not yet mollified by the response from them. Change.org has good, clear policies relating to other issue areas. The big hole is regarding workers' rights.
The answer to this problem is fairly obvious from a progressive standpoint, but apparently less clear-cut from a business standpoint. It isn't exactly news that corporate-funded organizations who are hell-bent on busting unions have a lot of money to spend, including on tools and advertisers like Change. Change.org's decision to stop working with Students First and Stand for Children is one that was undoubtedly a costly one, at least in so far as these organizations have lots of money from the Koch Brothers and the Walton family and others to spend. A broad, blanket policy to not work with union busters would surely foreclose business opportunities for Change.
The flip side, as the union presidents say in the letter, is that labor wants to be able to recommend other labor unions and progressive organizations use Change.org. Doing the right thing from a progressive standpoint should make clear to other liberals that they are a business worth doing work with.
Though the letter doesn't explicitly threaten a boycott of Change.org by labor and their allies, the implication is that these unions are prepared to use economic pressure strategies if the company doesn't enact a strongly progressive policy towards This may well serve to light a fire behind the already ongoing process to evaluate Change.org's client policy.
For me, the answer is pretty simple. Just as Change.org refuses to work with clients who are anti-gay, anti-immigrant, or anti-woman, they should make clear that they will not work with clients who are anti-worker. Read the rest of this post...
I've received a copy of the unions' letter to Change.org Founder and CEO Ben Rattray. Of note is the unions' strong demand for a clear policy from Change regarding their stand on workers' rights:
An unequivocal public statement from you articulating Change.org’s position on collective bargaining, and on workers’ rights more generally, would go a long way toward clarifying what your brand represents.The letter goes on:
As you know, leaders from a variety of labor unions and organizations over the past year have attempted to address with you the concerns we raise here. They and we are seeking clarification on how Change.org meshes two compelling objectives: remaining an open platform and (simultaneously) honoring your stated commitment to the public good over private corporate benefit. On a number of occasions, staff from unions that have raised this question with you have been assured that they should not worry about this issue, that contracts violating the spirit of your expressed goals were ending, and that Change.org was engaged in internal discussions about whom you would and would not work with in the future. Nevertheless, it appears that Change.org is entering into new contracts with groups that are not respectful of the right to collectively bargain or the benefits that flow from that right.
...
Organizations that weaken workers’ rights and facilitate the privatization of public services undermine the common good for private corporate benefit. Experience has shown that when these services upon which the public depends are opened to corporate interests, considerations of equal access, fairness and quality become much less important than profitability. We ask that you issue a response clarifying your position so that we can use your platform again and in good conscience recommend it to our brothers and sisters in labor and in the wider progressive community.
Last night Grim quoted a spokesperson for Change.org as saying, "As we've noted, Change.org is undertaking a company-wide process to evaluate and clarify our client policy." They also said that Change plans on reaching out to "thousands" of "stakeholders" for their input into what their policy should be. Hopefully this process is prompt.
Clearly unions representing workers affected by anti-teacher campaigns taking place on Change.org are not yet mollified by the response from them. Change.org has good, clear policies relating to other issue areas. The big hole is regarding workers' rights.
The answer to this problem is fairly obvious from a progressive standpoint, but apparently less clear-cut from a business standpoint. It isn't exactly news that corporate-funded organizations who are hell-bent on busting unions have a lot of money to spend, including on tools and advertisers like Change. Change.org's decision to stop working with Students First and Stand for Children is one that was undoubtedly a costly one, at least in so far as these organizations have lots of money from the Koch Brothers and the Walton family and others to spend. A broad, blanket policy to not work with union busters would surely foreclose business opportunities for Change.
The flip side, as the union presidents say in the letter, is that labor wants to be able to recommend other labor unions and progressive organizations use Change.org. Doing the right thing from a progressive standpoint should make clear to other liberals that they are a business worth doing work with.
Though the letter doesn't explicitly threaten a boycott of Change.org by labor and their allies, the implication is that these unions are prepared to use economic pressure strategies if the company doesn't enact a strongly progressive policy towards This may well serve to light a fire behind the already ongoing process to evaluate Change.org's client policy.
For me, the answer is pretty simple. Just as Change.org refuses to work with clients who are anti-gay, anti-immigrant, or anti-woman, they should make clear that they will not work with clients who are anti-worker. Read the rest of this post...
Change.org and union-busting
By now I assume you've seen that Change.org has dropped its two union-busting clients. This is the right move and I'm glad to see it. John's post this morning does raise some real concerns, though I'll leave those aside as they've already been covered.
I want to follow up on John's excellent post from yesterday on Change.org's work for conservative clients. I think John nails a lot of the reasons why Change working for conservatives is deeply problematic, but it's worth getting into the specifics of what Change was doing, why it is relevant, and why there was a strong push by supporters of workers rights' to get them to drop these clients.
As a disclaimer, because I view the use of ".org" to be a misleading piece of branding by a for-profit, I refer to them simply as Change.
Change had a long-running relationship with Students First, a group started by Michelle Rhee and funded by conservative Republican luminaries like Rupert Murdoch. Rhee and Students First are in the business of busting teachers unions, promoting private, for-profit schools, and making it easier for teachers' to be fired. If you've signed a petition on Change in the last year, you've probably been asked afterwards if you want to sign a petition for Students First. They're one of the most common promoted petitions I've seen, regardless of what issue I'm signing - even those related to workers' rights!
Despite lots of criticism, Change never backed down from their work with Rhee. Students First has gathered over 1.2 million supporters through Change, though it's not clear exactly how many of those came from paid acquisition versus visitors to the website genuinely wanting to bust teachers' unions.
The discussion of Change's partnership with union busting organizations has exploded this week because it appears they made a jump from working with an organization which advocates busting unions (Students First) to working with a group that is actively involved in a labor dispute (Stand for Children).
What's the deal with Stand for Children? According to the AFL-CIO, "a billionaire-funded “education reform” group founded by Jonah Edelman, that Chicago teachers say directly interferes with the collective bargaining process between the Chicago Teachers Union/AFT and the School Board." Billionaire funding including the Walton Foundation (of Wal-mart fame) and Bain. For more information about Stand for Children and their conservative, corporate funders, check out this post and this post.
The Chicago Teachers Union/AFT are currently in a bitter bargaining fight with the Chicago School Board. At issue are such life-changing matters as teacher pay, including the arts in the curriculum for children, and making sure there are nurses and counselors available for children in public schools. The union's members voted to authorize a strike, with 90% of members approving the move. This is notable, as Rahm Emanuel and Stand for Children had recently support a change to a law requiring CTU to have 75% support to strike.
Jennifer Johnson, a Chicago public school teacher and a CTU member, created a petition on SignOn.org (MoveOn's competing toolset to Change) that asks Change founder Ben Rattray to stop working with Stand for Children:
It's worth noting that in recent months, corporations which not only have never marketed themselves as progressive, but are largely anti-progressive, have withdrawn from the conservative advocacy group ALEC in the face of progressive pressure (again, Wal-Mart comes to mind). It's good to see Change be at least as responsive as these other for-profit businesses.
Union busting isn't ever OK, at least not for progressives. While Change has done the right thing by dropping Students First and Stand for Children as clients, it'd be great to know if this means they won't take other union-busting groups as clients in the future, or if this is them just caving to a particular pressure campaign. As John noted earlier, there are certainly things that are concerning in even how they talked about the choice they made.
Nonetheless, this is a strong victory, lead by the teachers' unions and progressives who believe that protecting workers' rights is just as much a part of what it means to be progressive as protecting LGBT rights or immigrant rights. Read the rest of this post...
I want to follow up on John's excellent post from yesterday on Change.org's work for conservative clients. I think John nails a lot of the reasons why Change working for conservatives is deeply problematic, but it's worth getting into the specifics of what Change was doing, why it is relevant, and why there was a strong push by supporters of workers rights' to get them to drop these clients.
As a disclaimer, because I view the use of ".org" to be a misleading piece of branding by a for-profit, I refer to them simply as Change.
Change had a long-running relationship with Students First, a group started by Michelle Rhee and funded by conservative Republican luminaries like Rupert Murdoch. Rhee and Students First are in the business of busting teachers unions, promoting private, for-profit schools, and making it easier for teachers' to be fired. If you've signed a petition on Change in the last year, you've probably been asked afterwards if you want to sign a petition for Students First. They're one of the most common promoted petitions I've seen, regardless of what issue I'm signing - even those related to workers' rights!
Despite lots of criticism, Change never backed down from their work with Rhee. Students First has gathered over 1.2 million supporters through Change, though it's not clear exactly how many of those came from paid acquisition versus visitors to the website genuinely wanting to bust teachers' unions.
The discussion of Change's partnership with union busting organizations has exploded this week because it appears they made a jump from working with an organization which advocates busting unions (Students First) to working with a group that is actively involved in a labor dispute (Stand for Children).
What's the deal with Stand for Children? According to the AFL-CIO, "a billionaire-funded “education reform” group founded by Jonah Edelman, that Chicago teachers say directly interferes with the collective bargaining process between the Chicago Teachers Union/AFT and the School Board." Billionaire funding including the Walton Foundation (of Wal-mart fame) and Bain. For more information about Stand for Children and their conservative, corporate funders, check out this post and this post.
The Chicago Teachers Union/AFT are currently in a bitter bargaining fight with the Chicago School Board. At issue are such life-changing matters as teacher pay, including the arts in the curriculum for children, and making sure there are nurses and counselors available for children in public schools. The union's members voted to authorize a strike, with 90% of members approving the move. This is notable, as Rahm Emanuel and Stand for Children had recently support a change to a law requiring CTU to have 75% support to strike.
Jennifer Johnson, a Chicago public school teacher and a CTU member, created a petition on SignOn.org (MoveOn's competing toolset to Change) that asks Change founder Ben Rattray to stop working with Stand for Children:
I am very dismayed to discover that you have taken on an anti-labor client, targeting teachers, at the height of their contract negotiations. These teachers are negotiating for libraries, art classes, school playgrounds, and support staff including counselors and nurses. These are important for schools and more importantly, children. To promote an anti-labor group’s anti-labor petition in the middle of a contract negotiation is unacceptable and dangerously close to crossing a picket line. Please stop promoting Stand for Children’s petition immediately. The teachers of Chicago deserve a public apology and assurances that you won’t promote conservative groups who work to weaken their bargaining ability on behalf of their students and jeopardize the quality public education for students that they are fighting for.It's really important that Change listened to Jennifer Johnson and was responsive this progressive criticism.
It's worth noting that in recent months, corporations which not only have never marketed themselves as progressive, but are largely anti-progressive, have withdrawn from the conservative advocacy group ALEC in the face of progressive pressure (again, Wal-Mart comes to mind). It's good to see Change be at least as responsive as these other for-profit businesses.
Union busting isn't ever OK, at least not for progressives. While Change has done the right thing by dropping Students First and Stand for Children as clients, it'd be great to know if this means they won't take other union-busting groups as clients in the future, or if this is them just caving to a particular pressure campaign. As John noted earlier, there are certainly things that are concerning in even how they talked about the choice they made.
Nonetheless, this is a strong victory, lead by the teachers' unions and progressives who believe that protecting workers' rights is just as much a part of what it means to be progressive as protecting LGBT rights or immigrant rights. Read the rest of this post...
Four Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition
UPDATE: A follow-up, "Goals of an Effective Progressive Coalition," appears here.
________
One of the changes I've decided to make coming out of Netroots Nation is to start writing more generally from time to time — essays and opinion pieces in addition to news and commentary.
The first of these pieces is this one: Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition (in my opinion, of course).
These rules actually apply to any coalition, but I have a specific goal in mind, so forgive me if I don't make this overly general.
By the way, I'm using capitals in the Coalition itself because I really want a proper name here, not just a description. I also want it to exist — anytime before my death would be fine with me.
Managing an Effective Progressive Coalition
An effective progressive coalition must be all three — progressive, effective, and a coalition — or it won't be worth most people's time to support.
1. No constituency in the Coalition takes a backward step to advance another's cause. (I call this the Cruickshank Rule; see below.)
2. Members of the Coalition have each others' back. No constituency under attack stands alone.
3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.
4. The Coalition preferences political action to discussion. (This is the No Dithering Rule.)
Though there one or two tripwires, this really isn't that complicated. You could probably have written these rules yourself, had you put your mind to it (and been forced to write).
Discussion
I'll offer a short gloss on each rule here, then expand my thoughts in the weeks ahead. I'll also respond (and perhaps adapt) to comments and suggestions, so keep those card coming in.
Note through the following the difference between progressive constituencies and progressive groups.
Working people, for example, are a constituency. A particular labor union is a group, an institution. Women are a constituency. An individual anti-abortion, or equal rights, or fair-labor organization is a group.
Sometimes groups represent constituencies, but not always. That said, onward.
Rule 1. No constituency takes a backward step (the Cruickshank Rule).
Here's Robert Cruickshank, of whom I've written before, on this principle. He articulates it this way here. In other places (for example on Sam Seder's show) he uses language like mine.
Cruickshank:
Let me say that differently. Your group can trade us out if it wishes, but it's not in the core of the Coalition if it does. No seat at the table, no decision-making power. You're with us to the extent that you play nice; and no further. We will not be cut from within.
There are two ways to violate this rule:
■ One is the naked way — an immigrant group takes a deal that sells out gays; a labor union takes a deal that sells out veterans; and so on. (No, I won't offer real examples; I will not sell out my brothers and sisters that way.)
■ The second is more insidious: Some progressive constituencies are asked to wait their turn — forever.
This happened in the years after Obama was elected. He had made a set of campaign promises to various progressive constituencies — immigrants were promised the DREAM Act; gays, an end to DADT and DOMA; labor, the enactment of EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act); and so on. There were many of these promises, in exchange for which the national Democrats got much progressive support.
Then came 2009, when Democrats held the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. As an example of much that happened, let's consider just those three constituencies — gays, immigrants and the labor movement.
What did the national Democrats do? Led by Obama, but not solely by him, they told gays, immigrants and groups representing labor: "Get behind us on health care first; after that we'll enact your items."
Despite the whinging and complaining, Obama's healthcare bill passed, as each progressive group in turn fell into line.
Then what happened? No DREAM Act. No end to DADT and DOMA (at first; see below). No EFCA (even now nothing is on the table). The national Democrats got their "hamburger today"; progressives were left waiting for the Tuesday at the end of the world.
(For the positive changes that gays and immigrants did affect, look no further than Rule 3.)
There's a side benefit to strictly applying the Cruickshank Rule (no backward steps). We use the Rachet Effect to our advantage for a change. At some point, we're playing on their end of the field — for a change.
Rule 2. Members have each other's back. This is almost a Cruickshank Corollary, but it speaks to unity, to coalition itself.
If we don't stand together, we don't stand together, us at the core of this group. We're just a bunch of well-meaning entities, getting some stuff done (maybe) and inadvertently (or worse) undoing each other's accomplishments.
Not what most of us had in mind when we joined this parade.
Rule 3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.
This is both obvious and difficult. Obvious because examples abound where national Democrats and the party as a whole — dominated as it is by Rubinites and NeoLiberals, Blue Dogs (however rebranded) and conservatives — too often betray progressive values and goals.
Following this rule speaks directly to effectiveness, and applies most directly to the core of this Coalition, to its leadership level.
In essence, this rule means, the Coalition can work with Democrats (or any other group), but it can't be led by them. And when it has to fight its enemies on a given issue, it has to recognize those enemies and deal effectively with them.
Not dealing with your enemies is a recipe for disaster. Cruickshank says, in the same piece quoted above:
The Democrats can be great partners, and the Party has many great progressive members. When they work with us, the result can be powerful.
But when the Party works against us, progressives must separate, go our own way, treat them as opposition if that's how they want to act.
How did gays get their great gains? Not by playing nice. By taking on the Democrats and winning. By challenging Obama in a room where he couldn't run away. Unapologetically.
How did immigrant constituencies get the recent part-way DREAM gain? By exploiting Obama's need for immigrant votes — in an tightening election year — when the word was spreading that Obama was tougher on deportations than Bush. (UPDATE: For more on this, go here.)
Simple, right? Practical, right?
Yet this is one of the tripwires. It's emotionally very difficult for progressives to separate from Dems. In the years I've been working this beat, I've seen it again and again. I saw it at Netroots Nation just this month.
We've supported Dems most of our lives. We've worked to elect them. In many cases they are our best professional friends.
Even progressives who see what the Party has become, treat it like an ex-spouse we still care about. We don't live together any more; but we don't want ill to befall them. We still care.
Yet to be effective, progressives have to choose between progressive goals and Party goals every time the choices conflict. If a person or group can't do that, they can help us out elsewhere, but they cannot lead.
And if they really get in the way, they'll get bit.
It's that simple. When Dems try to mislead progressives, we don't need "progressives" on the inside cheering them on.
There's a second way that "progressives" can be unfaithful to progressive causes, a way that has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. We all have careers and personal goals. This is not in itself bad.
But to use the progressive movement to preference one's own career, one's own goals at the expense of the movement itself — this also violates the rule. It's the same in effect as using the movement to advance the Rubinite Dems. Not good; not allowable behavior at the core of the Coalition.
Again, if career — or list-building, or cocktail-contact-climbing, or whatever — comes first, great. People like that can work with us, but they cannot lead.
I hope you can see why Rule 3 is necessary, at least at the leadership level. We can't be led by divided loyalties; that way lies failure.
Rule 4. The Coalition preferences action over discussion (the No Dithering Rule).
I personally like this one, but also think it's necessary. There's something about us on the left — one of our great virtues — that makes us thoughtful.
But like all god's creatures, we have the defect of our virtues — we are sometimes very thoughtful, grad-student thoughtful, dissertation thoughtful.
If you believe as I do that we're entering a period of simultaneous global deadlines — I'll have another post on that, but my current count is eight — I think not preferencing action is an indulgence, perhaps a fatal one.
I like the FDR approach. Paraphrased:
Bottom line
For once, the bottom line really is at the bottom. I tried to reduce these rules to only those needed. I think I succeeded. There are only four.
If I imagine this wonderful Coalition not strictly following any of these rules, I see failure — something like the current landscape in fact. That's not an outcome any of us wants:
Did I miss one? Let me know in the comments. And thanks as always for your thoughtful consideration.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
________
One of the changes I've decided to make coming out of Netroots Nation is to start writing more generally from time to time — essays and opinion pieces in addition to news and commentary.
The first of these pieces is this one: Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition (in my opinion, of course).
These rules actually apply to any coalition, but I have a specific goal in mind, so forgive me if I don't make this overly general.
By the way, I'm using capitals in the Coalition itself because I really want a proper name here, not just a description. I also want it to exist — anytime before my death would be fine with me.
Managing an Effective Progressive Coalition
An effective progressive coalition must be all three — progressive, effective, and a coalition — or it won't be worth most people's time to support.
- If it's not progressive, it's of no interest, at least to me.
- If it's not a coalition, it has no strength.
- And if it's not effective — if it can't accomplish anything — it's ultimately worse than a sham; it's a failure.
Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition
1. No constituency in the Coalition takes a backward step to advance another's cause. (I call this the Cruickshank Rule; see below.)
2. Members of the Coalition have each others' back. No constituency under attack stands alone.
3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.
4. The Coalition preferences political action to discussion. (This is the No Dithering Rule.)
Though there one or two tripwires, this really isn't that complicated. You could probably have written these rules yourself, had you put your mind to it (and been forced to write).
Discussion
I'll offer a short gloss on each rule here, then expand my thoughts in the weeks ahead. I'll also respond (and perhaps adapt) to comments and suggestions, so keep those card coming in.
Note through the following the difference between progressive constituencies and progressive groups.
Working people, for example, are a constituency. A particular labor union is a group, an institution. Women are a constituency. An individual anti-abortion, or equal rights, or fair-labor organization is a group.
Sometimes groups represent constituencies, but not always. That said, onward.
Rule 1. No constituency takes a backward step (the Cruickshank Rule).
Here's Robert Cruickshank, of whom I've written before, on this principle. He articulates it this way here. In other places (for example on Sam Seder's show) he uses language like mine.
Cruickshank:
Conservatives simply understand how coalitions work, and progressives don't. Conservative communication discipline is enabled only by the fact that everyone in the coalition knows they will get something for their participation. A right-winger will repeat the same talking points even on an issue he or she doesn't care about or even agree with because he or she knows that their turn will come soon, when the rest of the movement will do the same thing for them.And:
Progressives do not operate this way. We spend way too much time selling each other out, and way too little time having each other's back.Does this need discussion? This is true on its face, and speaks squarely to effectiveness. Until the practice of groups trading each other out is ended, we will have no force.
Let me say that differently. Your group can trade us out if it wishes, but it's not in the core of the Coalition if it does. No seat at the table, no decision-making power. You're with us to the extent that you play nice; and no further. We will not be cut from within.
There are two ways to violate this rule:
■ One is the naked way — an immigrant group takes a deal that sells out gays; a labor union takes a deal that sells out veterans; and so on. (No, I won't offer real examples; I will not sell out my brothers and sisters that way.)
■ The second is more insidious: Some progressive constituencies are asked to wait their turn — forever.
This happened in the years after Obama was elected. He had made a set of campaign promises to various progressive constituencies — immigrants were promised the DREAM Act; gays, an end to DADT and DOMA; labor, the enactment of EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act); and so on. There were many of these promises, in exchange for which the national Democrats got much progressive support.
Then came 2009, when Democrats held the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. As an example of much that happened, let's consider just those three constituencies — gays, immigrants and the labor movement.
What did the national Democrats do? Led by Obama, but not solely by him, they told gays, immigrants and groups representing labor: "Get behind us on health care first; after that we'll enact your items."
Despite the whinging and complaining, Obama's healthcare bill passed, as each progressive group in turn fell into line.
Then what happened? No DREAM Act. No end to DADT and DOMA (at first; see below). No EFCA (even now nothing is on the table). The national Democrats got their "hamburger today"; progressives were left waiting for the Tuesday at the end of the world.
(For the positive changes that gays and immigrants did affect, look no further than Rule 3.)
There's a side benefit to strictly applying the Cruickshank Rule (no backward steps). We use the Rachet Effect to our advantage for a change. At some point, we're playing on their end of the field — for a change.
Rule 2. Members have each other's back. This is almost a Cruickshank Corollary, but it speaks to unity, to coalition itself.
If we don't stand together, we don't stand together, us at the core of this group. We're just a bunch of well-meaning entities, getting some stuff done (maybe) and inadvertently (or worse) undoing each other's accomplishments.
Not what most of us had in mind when we joined this parade.
Rule 3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.
This is both obvious and difficult. Obvious because examples abound where national Democrats and the party as a whole — dominated as it is by Rubinites and NeoLiberals, Blue Dogs (however rebranded) and conservatives — too often betray progressive values and goals.
Following this rule speaks directly to effectiveness, and applies most directly to the core of this Coalition, to its leadership level.
In essence, this rule means, the Coalition can work with Democrats (or any other group), but it can't be led by them. And when it has to fight its enemies on a given issue, it has to recognize those enemies and deal effectively with them.
Not dealing with your enemies is a recipe for disaster. Cruickshank says, in the same piece quoted above:
[T]oday's Democratic Party has two wings to it. One wing is progressive, anti-corporate, and distrusts the free market. The other wing is neoliberal, pro-corporate, and trusts the free market. ... The only reason these two antithetical groups share a political party is because the Republicans won't have either one.At the time I printed that quote, I added this:
With Democrats, every advance of the DLC-corporate agenda is automatically a loss for progressives; and every progressive victory on taxes, for example, is always a loss for neoliberals. That baby can't be split.Try this for hated.
Cruickshank says that Obama has his own coalition, which isn't quite identical with the Democratic "coalition." In the Obama coalition, progressives are considered always expendable by Team Where Else You Gonna Go? (They're also hated and sneered at, I'd add, but why pile on?)
The Democrats can be great partners, and the Party has many great progressive members. When they work with us, the result can be powerful.
But when the Party works against us, progressives must separate, go our own way, treat them as opposition if that's how they want to act.
How did gays get their great gains? Not by playing nice. By taking on the Democrats and winning. By challenging Obama in a room where he couldn't run away. Unapologetically.
How did immigrant constituencies get the recent part-way DREAM gain? By exploiting Obama's need for immigrant votes — in an tightening election year — when the word was spreading that Obama was tougher on deportations than Bush. (UPDATE: For more on this, go here.)
Simple, right? Practical, right?
Yet this is one of the tripwires. It's emotionally very difficult for progressives to separate from Dems. In the years I've been working this beat, I've seen it again and again. I saw it at Netroots Nation just this month.
We've supported Dems most of our lives. We've worked to elect them. In many cases they are our best professional friends.
Even progressives who see what the Party has become, treat it like an ex-spouse we still care about. We don't live together any more; but we don't want ill to befall them. We still care.
Yet to be effective, progressives have to choose between progressive goals and Party goals every time the choices conflict. If a person or group can't do that, they can help us out elsewhere, but they cannot lead.
And if they really get in the way, they'll get bit.
It's that simple. When Dems try to mislead progressives, we don't need "progressives" on the inside cheering them on.
There's a second way that "progressives" can be unfaithful to progressive causes, a way that has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. We all have careers and personal goals. This is not in itself bad.
But to use the progressive movement to preference one's own career, one's own goals at the expense of the movement itself — this also violates the rule. It's the same in effect as using the movement to advance the Rubinite Dems. Not good; not allowable behavior at the core of the Coalition.
Again, if career — or list-building, or cocktail-contact-climbing, or whatever — comes first, great. People like that can work with us, but they cannot lead.
I hope you can see why Rule 3 is necessary, at least at the leadership level. We can't be led by divided loyalties; that way lies failure.
Rule 4. The Coalition preferences action over discussion (the No Dithering Rule).
I personally like this one, but also think it's necessary. There's something about us on the left — one of our great virtues — that makes us thoughtful.
But like all god's creatures, we have the defect of our virtues — we are sometimes very thoughtful, grad-student thoughtful, dissertation thoughtful.
If you believe as I do that we're entering a period of simultaneous global deadlines — I'll have another post on that, but my current count is eight — I think not preferencing action is an indulgence, perhaps a fatal one.
I like the FDR approach. Paraphrased:
Do something. If that doesn't work, do something else.A fine idea.
Bottom line
For once, the bottom line really is at the bottom. I tried to reduce these rules to only those needed. I think I succeeded. There are only four.
If I imagine this wonderful Coalition not strictly following any of these rules, I see failure — something like the current landscape in fact. That's not an outcome any of us wants:
- Backward steps? Loser plan.
- In-fighting? Loser plan.
- Led by Dems or careerism? Loser plan.
- Endlessly debating? Loser plan.
Did I miss one? Let me know in the comments. And thanks as always for your thoughtful consideration.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Sargent: Scott Walker victory in WI is wake-up call to Dems
Greg Sargent at the Washington Post on the failed recall of Wisconsin GOP Governor Scott Walker:
Unions and Dems had hoped that grassroots organizing would be enough to offset that spending advantage, and they did in fact mount a huge effort along those lines. The labor-backed We Are Wisconsin signed up 50,000 volunteers in the last 96 hours, a volunteer army that knocked on 1.5 million doors throughout the state. It wasn’t nearly enough.Our take on the loss here. Read the rest of this post...
“It’s pretty clear that the voices of ordinary citizens are at permanent risk of being drowned out by uninhibited corporate spending,” said Michelle Ringuette, an official with the American Federation of Teachers.
Conservatives will respond to this by insisting that this battle proves that they’re winning the war of ideas, and indeed, national Republicans were quick to claim that tonight’s results bode well for November. Recalls are quirky; exit polls showed a big Obama lead; and polls have not shown national support for Walker’s agenda. So it seems unlikely that tonight’s outcome says anything too predictive about this fall.
But the outcome does say something important about the developing post-Citizens United landscape, and should prompt a major reckoning over how Dems, the labor and the left should deal with this new reality going forward.
"The politics of envy won in Wisconsin and will now accelerate nationwide"
I'm at Netroots Nation today, so blogging will be light. But like many I had eyes for Wisconsin last night and this morning, and thoughts as well.
I spoke with a union advocate (another early arrival) who didn't want any potential loss to be ultimately tagged "anti-union." I think on reflection she will get her wish. Some will call it that, but I think the winning analysis goes to Sean-Paul Kelley, who tweeted this morning:
But the real winning argument for the voters, as Kelley correctly says, is "the politics of envy." Watch for it, even in the CNN-type coverage.
But it's not envy of the rich — that's not what "good peasants" do (to borrow from Matt Taibbi).
It's envy of the poor slob next to you, the one you closely resemble, who has the extra nickel you don't. His pension (on your dime, mind you) is that extra nickel.
This will swirl in lefty brains for a while, and I'm sure smarter people than me will beg to differ (heck, even I — who can often be smarter than me — may soon disagree). But as a first take, I give the nod to Sean-Paul, who nails it.
See you amongst the 'Roots,
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
I spoke with a union advocate (another early arrival) who didn't want any potential loss to be ultimately tagged "anti-union." I think on reflection she will get her wish. Some will call it that, but I think the winning analysis goes to Sean-Paul Kelley, who tweeted this morning:
Make no mistake about it: the politics of envy won in Wisconsin and will now accelerate nationwide.The argument goes like this —
"Those (union) guys have pensions paid for by your tax dollars. Do you have a pension? Hell, no. And now, in a time of "austerity for all" they won't give it back, or pay for it themselves. Da bastahds. Let's get 'em."In other words, taking down the unions is the sweet side-effect for Our Betters, who really do want to destroy the last vestiges of trade unionism in the U.S. (For an excellent read on how the unions are not helping, see the electoral-minded Howie Klein. Brilliant take on this.)
But the real winning argument for the voters, as Kelley correctly says, is "the politics of envy." Watch for it, even in the CNN-type coverage.
But it's not envy of the rich — that's not what "good peasants" do (to borrow from Matt Taibbi).
It's envy of the poor slob next to you, the one you closely resemble, who has the extra nickel you don't. His pension (on your dime, mind you) is that extra nickel.
This will swirl in lefty brains for a while, and I'm sure smarter people than me will beg to differ (heck, even I — who can often be smarter than me — may soon disagree). But as a first take, I give the nod to Sean-Paul, who nails it.
See you amongst the 'Roots,
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
VIDEO Scott Walker to billionaire: "We'll use divide-and-conquer" to turn Wisc "into right-to-work state"
Gov. Scott Walker, caught on tape — this time with a real billionaire, not a spoofed one. (Note, however, that the "reporting to the boss" tone is intact.)
In this video from January 2011, newly elected Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker tells his largest donor, billionaire Diane Hendricks, that he plans to use divide-and-conquer to turn Wisconsin into a right-to-work state.
The video just surfaced and it's a bombshell. He knew what he was doing from the beginning — and admits it here. Watch:
The second woman on the tape is Mary Willmer-Sheedy, "a community bank president for M&I Bank," according the Journal-Sentinel.
From the complete transcript published by the Journal-Sentinel, here's the set-up to the segment shown above (the video contains most but not all of this material). For example, this gives you the context of the video's creation by Brad Lichtenstein, the videographer (my emphases throughout):
The only difference between radical-Republican Indiana and radical-Republican Wisconsin is the methodology; Daniels could use executive order and Walker has to use the legislature (which he controls). "But the key is by tying it to the budget, there's no way to unravel that."
More on from Blogging Blue, the site that published the video above:
Still more at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Uncle Straight Talk sez: — The radical Republican governors are the template for the next Republican president, including Mitt Romney.
Every step in the Movement Conservative Project started by Paul Weirich and others in the 1970s requires each Republican office holder to move the ball further down the field than the last one. So Reagan built on Nixon; Bush I built on Reagan; Bush II built on Bush I.
Even Clinton (I) and Obama did their parts. Clinton — repeal of Glass-Steagall, Telecom "reform," NAFTA, and his aborted attempt to start the roll-back of Social Security, just to name a few. Obama — NDAA, drone murder based on "data signatures" rather than target identification, the push to approve the planet-killing Keystone Pipeline, just to name a few of his sins.
I don't personally think we can afford to let another Republican win. But the current Democratic "alternatives" are not much to write home about. How 'bout we fix that, shall we?
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
In this video from January 2011, newly elected Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker tells his largest donor, billionaire Diane Hendricks, that he plans to use divide-and-conquer to turn Wisconsin into a right-to-work state.
The video just surfaced and it's a bombshell. He knew what he was doing from the beginning — and admits it here. Watch:
The second woman on the tape is Mary Willmer-Sheedy, "a community bank president for M&I Bank," according the Journal-Sentinel.
From the complete transcript published by the Journal-Sentinel, here's the set-up to the segment shown above (the video contains most but not all of this material). For example, this gives you the context of the video's creation by Brad Lichtenstein, the videographer (my emphases throughout):
This is a transcript of a conversation between Gov. Scott Walker and Diane Hendricks, co-founder of ABC Supply, on Jan. 18, 2011. The conversation was captured by documentary filmmaker Brad Lichtenstein, who was on site to videotape a meeting of the economic development group Rock County 5.0. The conversation took place in ABC's foyer just before Hendricks escorted Walker into the Rock County 5.0 meeting.And note this, from the transcript, which occurs after the clip above:
Diane Hendricks: Can we talk just for two seconds before we get up there?
Scott Walker: Yeah, yeah, that's fine.
Hendricks: - some issues we're just going to avoid a little bit. And by the way, this is Brad and he is part of Rock County 5.0 and he has been filming everything.
Brad Lichtenstein: I've been doing a documentary -
Walker: Oh, cool.
Hendricks: - so what we're going to do and talk about right now is just concerns that Mary (Willmer-Sheedy) and I have that we probably, are a little controversial to bring up upstairs. OK? I don't want to - because there's press up there.
Walker: OK, sure.
Lichtenstein: Just so you know, nothing I do is going to see the light of day for over another year.
Walker: OK, that's fine.
Hendricks: Which state would you mirror? Is there any state that's already . . .Killing unions was the goal all along, and the billionaire and governor talk easily about that.
Walker: Well, (Indiana Gov.) Mitch Daniels, did - now, see the beautiful thing is, he did it in Indiana, he had it by executive order that created the unions years ago, and so when he came in about a week after he eliminated through executive order. In Wisconsin, it's by the statute. So I need lawmakers to vote on it. But the key is by tying it to the budget, there's no way to unravel that. Because unless they're going to come up with $800 million for example - it's not exactly that amount, but it's close - there's no way they cannot pass that unless they're going to pass a tax increase...
The only difference between radical-Republican Indiana and radical-Republican Wisconsin is the methodology; Daniels could use executive order and Walker has to use the legislature (which he controls). "But the key is by tying it to the budget, there's no way to unravel that."
More on from Blogging Blue, the site that published the video above:
Republican Gov. Scott Walker admits in a video recorded on January 18, 2011 that he wanted to use Act 10, the so-called budget repair bill, as a first step towards a “divide and conquer” strategy against unions in Wisconsin, with the end goal of turning Wisconsin into a “right to work” state. At the time the video was shot, Gov. Walker had not yet “dropped the bomb” in the form of Act 10, but as the recording clearly indicates, Act 10 was intended as an attack on public employee unions, not as an actual “budget repair” bill.And there's an interesting quid-pro-quo with Ms. Hendricks from Blogging Blue:
Gov. Walker made the comments to Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks, since Gov. Walker’s promises to her has given $510,000 to the governor’s campaign, making her Walker’s single-largest donor and the largest known donor to a candidate in state history.Again, killing the unions is the plan all along. The difference between the radical Indiana and radical Wisconsin plans is just the methodology.
Still more at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Uncle Straight Talk sez: — The radical Republican governors are the template for the next Republican president, including Mitt Romney.
Every step in the Movement Conservative Project started by Paul Weirich and others in the 1970s requires each Republican office holder to move the ball further down the field than the last one. So Reagan built on Nixon; Bush I built on Reagan; Bush II built on Bush I.
Even Clinton (I) and Obama did their parts. Clinton — repeal of Glass-Steagall, Telecom "reform," NAFTA, and his aborted attempt to start the roll-back of Social Security, just to name a few. Obama — NDAA, drone murder based on "data signatures" rather than target identification, the push to approve the planet-killing Keystone Pipeline, just to name a few of his sins.
I don't personally think we can afford to let another Republican win. But the current Democratic "alternatives" are not much to write home about. How 'bout we fix that, shall we?
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Is Hyatt's "don't blog about us" employee policy invasive? NLRB General Counsel issues complaint
Chris in Paris has written about the employer-intrusion topic before — "Employers now demanding job seekers turn over their Facebook passwords, usernames" — but the Hyatt employee handbook goes beyond that.
Take a look:
Note:
■ "Blogging" is defined. That's not a friendly definition — looks pretty inclusive, doesn't it? These are all the activities that can get you canned.
■ "Could have an adverse affect [sic] on Hyatt's business interests" — Cuts to the chase. Off-duty and off the clock, you are responsible for protecting "Hyatt's business interests."
■ "Compliance with federal, state and/or local laws" — This has two effects [sic]. One is to scare you, like the FBI warning on your DVDs. The other is to allow them to swim, if they can, just this side of the law (they hope; we'll see).
■ "Take steps to determine their identity" — Or as Count Floyd would say, "Be very scared." Seriously.
All you need to know? If you're a Hyatt employee, your job is to protect "Hyatt's business interests" in your off hours. The implied punishment is to find yourself on the secret "under-performing" list in the next layoff.
So how is this different from being told you can't bitch about your employers ... on your own time ... at Karaoke Night ... with a big loud mic in your hand ... on Mardi Gras ... with a big loud crowd outside listening.
Hyatt wants to shut that stuff down, if they can. Welcome to your job.
And now the news — the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency) is looking into it:
I'm all eagerness to see which of my two minds has lost its mind. Stay tuned. I'll update this when it resolves.
Laboriously yours,
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
Take a look:
Note:
■ "Blogging" is defined. That's not a friendly definition — looks pretty inclusive, doesn't it? These are all the activities that can get you canned.
■ "Could have an adverse affect [sic] on Hyatt's business interests" — Cuts to the chase. Off-duty and off the clock, you are responsible for protecting "Hyatt's business interests."
■ "Compliance with federal, state and/or local laws" — This has two effects [sic]. One is to scare you, like the FBI warning on your DVDs. The other is to allow them to swim, if they can, just this side of the law (they hope; we'll see).
■ "Take steps to determine their identity" — Or as Count Floyd would say, "Be very scared." Seriously.
All you need to know? If you're a Hyatt employee, your job is to protect "Hyatt's business interests" in your off hours. The implied punishment is to find yourself on the secret "under-performing" list in the next layoff.
So how is this different from being told you can't bitch about your employers ... on your own time ... at Karaoke Night ... with a big loud mic in your hand ... on Mardi Gras ... with a big loud crowd outside listening.
Hyatt wants to shut that stuff down, if they can. Welcome to your job.
And now the news — the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency) is looking into it:
Thankfully, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel is calling these policies into question. The use of social media by off-the-clock employees has become a hot button issue recently with the NLRB, and in a recent complaint the Board’s General Counsel found that Hyatt’s policies are overly broad and illegally violate free speech [pdf]. The company has yet to change its employee handbooks or clarify its policies.I'm of two minds on this. The first is, Yes, go for it, Mr. NLRB. The second is, Let's see if you're a captive agency, in an election year, after 30 years of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush rule.
I'm all eagerness to see which of my two minds has lost its mind. Stay tuned. I'll update this when it resolves.
Laboriously yours,
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
Unions return to Democratic fold for 2012 election (plus thoughts on the future of Labor)
First the news, then my very mixed feelings.
From the LA Times (my emphasis):
(This year's version will be called the Obot Wars, by the way, and they've already started. We'll have to be careful not to kill our coalition-hopes with them — as surprising as it is for us ex-grad school types to believe, not everyone who disagrees with us is evil. A lot depends on the reasoning. Word to the wise.)
That said, as a 2012 strategy, there's a logic to the unions taking this stand.
On the seriously other hand, though, if unions aren't thinking long-term about (not) supporting the Democratic party — in order to wrest control of it from the labor-hating NeoLibs who run it (yes, Bill Clinton, I'm looking right at you) — then unions are looking at the end of unionism in the U.S.
It's just that simple. Obama made the Employee Free Choice Act a high-priority promise in his 2008 campaign, then told Rahm Emanuel to tell unions to wait until health care "reform" was done. By then it was too late. Here's Jane Hamsher, who covered it closely at the time:
That's not a 2012 problem, it's a long-term survival problem. If unions and progressives don't get off their Dem-serving kiesters and force concessions from the NeoLibs (yes, Mr. Obama, I'm looking straight at you), the only union members will be found in museums — next to your civil rights.
I said I'd be writing about the election shortly. I'll also be writing about what an effective Progressive Coalition looks like.
Effective — you know, one that plays to win. (Unions used to do that I hear, back in the day.)
GP Read the rest of this post...
From the LA Times (my emphasis):
Last May, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stood a few blocks from the White House and issued a stern warning: Union members could not be counted on as the Democrats' foot soldiers anymore.This despite the following:
"If leaders aren't blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families' interests, then working people will not support them," he said in a speech at the National Press Club.
Flash forward to today: Labor appears squarely back in the Democrats' corner for the 2012 election — pushed there in large part by Republican attacks on collective bargaining rights for public employees.
Per Channel 14 News in Charlotte NC (h/t commenter ezpz; my emphasis):I haven't written about the 2012 election lately; I'm planning a series of posts staking out the viable positions, some of which conflict. I want to help avoid the 2008 PUMA Wars the left savaged itself with last time.Thirteen unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO voted to sit out [the 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina] because the members objected to selecting a right-to-work state as a host.Note that the battle is not between the "unions" and the Democratic party — it's between 13 individual unions and the AFL-CIO. As we noted here, the AFL-CIO is the original sinner in endorsing (in effect) Ronald Reagan's history-making union-busting PATCO strike in 1981.
(This year's version will be called the Obot Wars, by the way, and they've already started. We'll have to be careful not to kill our coalition-hopes with them — as surprising as it is for us ex-grad school types to believe, not everyone who disagrees with us is evil. A lot depends on the reasoning. Word to the wise.)
That said, as a 2012 strategy, there's a logic to the unions taking this stand.
On the seriously other hand, though, if unions aren't thinking long-term about (not) supporting the Democratic party — in order to wrest control of it from the labor-hating NeoLibs who run it (yes, Bill Clinton, I'm looking right at you) — then unions are looking at the end of unionism in the U.S.
It's just that simple. Obama made the Employee Free Choice Act a high-priority promise in his 2008 campaign, then told Rahm Emanuel to tell unions to wait until health care "reform" was done. By then it was too late. Here's Jane Hamsher, who covered it closely at the time:
The fate of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) over the course of the past year and a half [2008–2010] has been largely determined by the White House. Rahm Emanuel would not let it come up for a vote until after health care was passed, and by that time the Democrats no longer had 60 votes in the Senate....Bottom line — Obama got his hamburger today, thanks to Trumka, but it's never going to be Tuesday at Democratic party headquarters. Unions and progressives are playing the same loser game; they ask and wait. And wait.Richard Trumka: The President/and Emanuel have both said they dont intend to bring Employee Free Choice Act up until Health Insurance Reform is done. Which gives us an additional reason to do Health Insurance Reform now!
That's not a 2012 problem, it's a long-term survival problem. If unions and progressives don't get off their Dem-serving kiesters and force concessions from the NeoLibs (yes, Mr. Obama, I'm looking straight at you), the only union members will be found in museums — next to your civil rights.
I said I'd be writing about the election shortly. I'll also be writing about what an effective Progressive Coalition looks like.
Effective — you know, one that plays to win. (Unions used to do that I hear, back in the day.)
GP Read the rest of this post...
Did you hear the one about the multi-millionaire who played the poor union guy on the Super Bowl ad?
From Republican Report:
This morning, Republic Report published a post revealing the backers of an anti-union ad that ran during the Super Bowl. We realized after publication that one of the actors playing a disgruntled union mechanic was actually Rick Berman, the consultant advising the anti-union lobbying campaign. A call to Berman and Company confirmed that Berman, who owns a $3.3 million dollar house and is known for his elaborate astroturf campaigns on behalf of big corporations, played the part of a mechanic in the ad.Read the rest of this post...
Some other things Teddy Roosevelt said at Osawatomie
President Obama recently gave a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas. (Don't you just love these Midwestern Indian names? Michigan has a Genesee county; Kansas has a Wyandotte county; horrible Kathy Nicklaus lives in Waukesha. Great fun to say.)
Speaking at Osawatomie, Obama quoted Theodore Roosevelt:
Obama went to Osawatomie quoting Roosevelt because Roosevelt also spoke at Osawatomie, in 1910, and in my opinion gave a much better speech (PDF). I mean, how do you compete with this prose, taken just as prose:
More Roosevelt:
Undoing corporate power is one of the tasks of this just-born century. A hundred years ago, Roosevelt considered it a task for the last one. We're late.
On punishment for corporate malfeasance:
On Wall Street investing vs gambling:
And finally, Roosevelt making the "living wage" argument, which (once) was an actual core teaching of the Catholic Church:
I'll stop here, but feel free to read the rest of the speech. It's chock full, famous for a reason.
Does Obama's "I get it" speech stand up? I guess that depends on what he actually does, and not what he says.
GP Read the rest of this post...
Speaking at Osawatomie, Obama quoted Theodore Roosevelt:
“Our country,” [Roosevelt] said, “...means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy ... of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”Sounds very progressive-sounding, doesn't it? (Yes, I meant that.) It also sounds pretty general, but that's Obama's style it seems; promise the general, deliver the second lieutenant.
Obama went to Osawatomie quoting Roosevelt because Roosevelt also spoke at Osawatomie, in 1910, and in my opinion gave a much better speech (PDF). I mean, how do you compete with this prose, taken just as prose:
There have been two great crises in our country's history: first, when it was formed, and then, again, when it was perpetuated; and, in the second of these great crises - in the time of stress and strain which culminated in the Civil War, on the outcome of which depended the justification of what had been done earlier, you men of the Grand Army, you men who fought through the Civil War, not only did you justify your generation, not only did you render life worth living for our generation, but you justified the wisdom of Washington and Washington's colleagues.But to the point, Obama appears to have read only Roosevelt's intro, since he quotes just the second sentence. Here are some other things Teddy Roosevelt said at Osawatomie (h/t Kevin Murphy via email; all emphasis and reparagraphing mine):
■ The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.The creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master. How do you not love that? (Given his immediate need, I'm not sure our Fierce Defender understands who is the master.)
The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being.
More Roosevelt:
■ There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.Very modern, yet we're still waiting to implement this, after all these years. It's a straight line, isn't it — from corporate personhood under the 14th Amendment to "money equals speech" to Citizens United and endless cash endlessly buying elections.
Undoing corporate power is one of the tasks of this just-born century. A hundred years ago, Roosevelt considered it a task for the last one. We're late.
On punishment for corporate malfeasance:
■ I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law.Incentives matter. Humans held responsible for human behavior when they cause deaths, or worse, kill to win. And I'm a great fan of the Corporate Death Penalty — when corps kill people, they should be killed, their charters revoked. Let the shareholders roll dice to see who gets the shoes.
On Wall Street investing vs gambling:
■ Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered.If Obama would say that with his deeds, I'll be a Fierce Defender myself.
And finally, Roosevelt making the "living wage" argument, which (once) was an actual core teaching of the Catholic Church:
■ No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so that after his day’s work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community.Meanwhile, the history of the minimum wage, even under Democratic control of government, is shameful. In real terms, the U.S. minimum wage peaked in 1968.
I'll stop here, but feel free to read the rest of the speech. It's chock full, famous for a reason.
Does Obama's "I get it" speech stand up? I guess that depends on what he actually does, and not what he says.
GP Read the rest of this post...
UK Top Gear host proposes 'execution in front of their families' for strikers
For a guy who has been cashing in so nicely for being a complete ass, it's not clear why he feels the need to attack middle class Britain other than being a shock-jock is what he does. It's never been clear why anyone likes his staged events or his car talk, because he's the most predictable arrogant jerk I've ever seen on TV. His show is a success in a Rush Limbaugh kind of way. Here's the actual video, if you can stomach this guy.
Obviously the show is growing boring to others or else he wouldn't be to keen to come up with something so ridiculous to shock viewers. Guess who votes Conservative?
Obviously the show is growing boring to others or else he wouldn't be to keen to come up with something so ridiculous to shock viewers. Guess who votes Conservative?
The provocative Top Gear presenter sparked a storm of outrage on Twitter after telling viewers of the BBC One programme that he would have striking public sector workers shot.Read the rest of this post...
"I would have them taken outside and executed them in front of their families," he said.
Ohio voters repeal GOP’s anti-union law
Honey, the unions shrunk the Republicans. In fact, they lost 2-1. Is this a harbinger for good things to come? Perhaps. But it's clear the GOP is having an awfully bad week.
Ohioans overturned a divisive anti-union law on Tuesday, delivering a significant defeat to Republican Gov. John Kasich and a victory to labor unions.More from the Washington Post. Read the rest of this post...
Ohio voters rejected Issue 2, a ballot referendum on Senate Bill 5, a measure that restricts collective bargaining rights for more than 360,000 public employees, among other provisions. Opposition to the legislation inspired large protests from residents around the state this year.
Ohio looks likely to repeal anti-union bill
There's little doubt GOP governor and former banker John Kasich overreached with this ridiculous attack on unions. The GOP can spin it however they like, but people in the Buckeye state aren't buying the lie that unions are the cause of the states financial problems. Telling blatant lies to the public is why Kasich's support has plummeted in the last year.
Ohio voters favored repeal 57 percent to 32 percent, an Oct. 25 Quinnipiac University poll showed. But Mauk said the law's backers are still cautiously optimistic they can win, and will continue through the weekend to carry the bill's tea party-friendly message to voters.Read the rest of this post...
"People are tired of government spending more than it makes, more than it collects, and they're frustrated by the debt and deficit problem in Washington," Mauk said. "Voters clearly sent a message of concern (in 2010) and they're demanding that government get its house in order, and that's the platform John Kasich ran on. This is an effort to try to eliminate government excess and get spending under control."
Polls show Kasich is ranked among America's least popular governors, thanks in part to his fight against the unions. The former congressman, investment banker and Fox News commentator has traveled the state to rally voters to keep the law and appeared in pro-Issue 2 commercials paid for by Make Ohio Great, a project of the Republican Governors Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
