Friday, June 17, 2011
Miscellaneous 81
1) There are two things that absolutely need to happen. a) The far-right needs to stop using the word, "government", as if it were a dirty word and b) the far-left needs to stop using the phrase, "private enterprise", as if in fact IT were a a swear word. Until those two essential things happen, we will NEVER, EVER, EVER, get out of this - EVER!!!!!............2) Martin Bashir reported on an interesting finding today. It said that children growing up in families without a father present are five times more likely to live in poverty, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison....I hate to bring it up, folks, but remember how Dan Quayle brought up this issue, and how literally everybody (myself probably included) ridiculed the fellow? Yeah, huh? Well, save for the seemingly awkward and doltish presentation of it, it looks as if the beleaguered Mr. Quayle wasn't entirely wet after all (and, no, I'm not implying here that this isn't a complex issue, only that the fellow wasn't TOTALLY wrong).............3) It's absolutely clear where FDR stood on collective bargaining for government employees. HE FRIGGING WAS AGAINST IT!...Now, is it possible that he might have a different position today (were he in fact still alive)? I don't know. My suspicion is that, yes, he possibly might have a different position (not necessarily out of principle, mind you, but out of political expediency - the man was as bald-faced a cynical politician as Nixon and Clinton COMBINED!!) now. But to say that he always had that pro-collective bargaining position, even 75 years ago, is ludicrous - ludicrous and totally desperate, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I have no idea why part of #2 came out bold-faced. I tried to fix the sucker but it stayed.
Will: It's absolutely clear where FDR stood on collective bargaining for government employees.
FDR in a letter to the President of the National Federation of Federal Employees...
"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry".
The letter does NOT then continue on to say, "but I am adamantly opposed to government employees being able to collectively bargain for these things".
FDR was frigging NOT against collective bargaining rights for government employees! I wouldn't say he was frigging 100% for it either... I'd say his position was frigging nuanced. Frigging nuance you apparently don't get.
That quote says nothing! It talks about their "desires". It says nada about procedure.
I strongly believe that by mentioning these desires FDR was acknowledging that it was reasonable that government employees should be able to collectively bargain for them.
What's your conclusion? That he listed these desires but was really thinking... "but they shouldn't be able to bargain for them". Either the administration in charge will grant these desires... or they won't. Government employees can take it or leave it?
Republicans support the race to the bottom, not Democrats. FDR would have totally opposed what Scott Walker and other Republican Governors are doing.
It's my opinion that it's your position that is ludicrous and totally desperate.
...but remember how Dan Quayle brought up this issue, and how literally everybody (myself probably included) ridiculed the fellow?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
"the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public service management." Yes, that's my conclusion. CANNOT BE TRANSPLANTED INTO THE PUBLIC SERVICE. And, yes, those 3 other Democrats agreed with him.
Exactly, double b. I call that the Dick Cheney/Bill O'Reilly syndrome.
...the process of collective bargaining, AS USUALLY UNDERSTOOD, cannot be transplanted into the public service....
This clearly says to me that collective bargaining CAN be transplanted in the public service in a way modified from AS USUALLY UNDERSTOOD.
My conclusion is that YOU'RE WRONG and that FDR did support some form of collective bargaining rights for government employees. What he objected to was government workers going on strike (see my blog for the details).
"Republicans support the race to the bottom, not Democrats."
Not true at all. Republicans tend to favor fair real value wages. Not grossly overpaying public "Servants" to such a degree that it bloats classes sized, closes schools, degrades public service. etc.
I strongly applaud what Walker is doing in Wisconsin. The greedy thugs lost the latest round.
Will: The greed of unions (which seek to maximize pay while minimizing work is incompatible with the idea of "public service'.
When unions force factories to leave the country or state (as happens near me a lot), it is unfortunate. When unions force a school to close, it's a tragedy.
Pay government workers the necessary amount to keep the best workers on the job. There is absolutely no reason to waste money above this. In a way, union wages for government workers are a form of welfare for the well-off. The money certainly is not earned.
Here is an interesting quote from George Meany on public sector unions.
"Certain business leaders may consider "big government" or socialism more of an immediate threat to their interests than communism. Are they allowing themselves to be deluded by their own propaganda to the effect that organized labor in this country is in favor of big government or the nationalization of industry?
Nothing could be further from the truth. The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare"
Remember: while private sector unions screw corporate fatcats and investors, public sector unions only screw us. They impoverish the general public while significantly degrading important public services such as education and fire protection.
Negotiating for fair pay and safe working conditions is "screwing"? Sorry dmarks, but I strongly disagree.
Oh my God, wd, you never give up. So, you're saying that FDR didn't approve of "collective bargaining for government workers A" but that he DID approve of "collective bargaining for government workers B"? Hm, so what was this form of collective bargaining that FDR thought was appropriate for government workers? Oh, and, better yet, why didn't he implement this form of collective bargaining for the massive number of Federal employees that were then under his charge?............Dude, FDR was against collective bargaining for Government workers. Even Lawrence O'Donnell, who read this very quote on his show, completely agrees with my interpretation.
Great quote, dmarks. I remember reading that earlier and, yes, it's even more crystal clear than FDR's.
"Negotiating for fair pay and safe working conditions is "screwing"?"
The pay negotiations have nothing to do with fair pay, since the result is often a pay level way above the actual fair value of the work. This forces the government agencies to cut services. Yes, when the greedy get overpaid just because they say "gimme" and (threaten criminal action such as strikes) it DOES screw us.
There is no good reason for the government to pay more than the pay level necessary to get employees to get the job done. Overpaying greedy public "servants" is very much against the public interest, and is in fact a form of welfare. An unearned handout to the well off at the expense of taxpayers' wallets and good public service.
As for safe working conditions, this should be properly taken care of by OSHA or similar organizations. Workplaces should be safe, period, and safety should not be subject to how well a union team negotiates. That's a terrible way to do it: people could die because some union steward on a negotiating team does a bad job.
So there you have it. Fair pay (the real market value). No union needed (and negotiated overpay is very destructive to the critical missions of government). Safe workplaces... mandate this through regulation, at an high level for all workplaces. Again, no union needed.
Regardless, yes we do disagree on these. Workers disagree too. So why you disagree that it would be the most fair to let each worker decide whether or not to join a union?
--------------
Will: The facts are so clear on this. No amount of semantic backflips and rewriting history can change what FDR really said and meant.
Also remember to consider George Meany, who had no problems with unions (private sector) sticking it to big business, but had a big problem with unions (public sector) sticking it to the people as whole.
Thankfully, sanity has won in Wisconsin, and in time people will recognize the losers as a moneyed well-off interest that was angry that it got caught getting fat and sticking its hand in the cookie jar.
Martin Bashir and Dan Quayle are wrong on fathers. The cause of the problems you list are poverty. The absence of a father is a factor in that without one the household has less income. Murphy Brown's kid did just fine... I'm sure. Her income allowed her to provide for all her son's needs (or they would have, had she been a real person and not a fictional character).
I don't like Martin Bashir. He weaseled his way into Michael Jackson's home by allowing Michael to think his reporting would portray Michael positively. I think Bashir's reporting contributed (in some small way) to Michael Jackson's death. BTW, I think Michael Jackson was innocent of what he was accused of.
Also, the "far left" doesn't believe "private enterprise" is a dirty word. I think you need to stop buying into far Right stereotypes of the Left.
dmarks: Not true at all. Republicans tend to favor fair real value wages.
No, it's your statement that isn't true at all. We need to take steps to bring everyone else's wages and benefits UP, not bring the wages and benefits of public workers DOWN.
Making it easier to unionize would be a step in the right direction.
What Walker is doing to stealing from the public employees to give to his rich cronies. There was no fiscal crisis until Walker cut corporate taxes.
Do you make too much, or is it just everyone else?
Will: Oh my God, wd, you never give up. So, you're saying that FDR didn't approve of "collective bargaining for government workers A" but that he DID approve of "collective bargaining for government workers B"?
I was thinking the exact same thing about you. YOU never give up. We've discussed this before. I'm not the one who brought it up AGAIN.
FDR was against public sector unions being able to strike. Read the Daily Kos article for the details.
Show me in that letter where FDR said that he was not NOT OPPOSED to collective bargaining for government workers. The Daily Kos - just like you - is flailing. And I never said that FDR was opposed to public sector unions, just that he was opposed to collective bargaining. The could organize, approach the government for safety concerns, represent them if unjustly fired but they COULD NOT COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN. And if he was FOR collective bargaining for government workers (and he obviously wasn't), then why didn't he allow it for his massive federal work force? I cannot wait for your answer on that one.
W-Dervish said: "...not bring the wages and benefits of public workers DOWN."
Why??? Why waste the money? Is overpaying government employees really the critical mission of government? Is it any mission at all?
"Making it easier to unionize would be a step in the right direction."
But would you support, in this, the right of each worker to have nothing to do with the union?
"What Walker is doing to stealing from the public employees to give to his rich cronies."
This statement of yours shows a complete lack of understanding about the meaning of theft.
1) It is not theft to choose to give away fewer handouts. The money involved does not belong to the public employees in the first place. If your father chooses not to give you a bicycle for Christmas, is he stealing from you?
2) Taxation DOES fit the definition of theft pretty closely, though not exactly. Tax cuts involve $0 giving. None. Nada. Zilch. It is not a gift to choose to steal less from someone. If a mugger takes your wallet but lets you keep your shoes, do you call that a gift from the mugger?
The shoes in the above example are exactly as much a gift as the tax breaks are.
"Do you make too much, or is it just everyone else?"
In any situation, if someone will do the same job as well for less money. it makes sense to pay the lower amount.
Post a Comment