Monday, June 27, 2011
You Don't Always Have to Like and/or Agree With the Messenger
Peter Schweizer isn't a liar. He's a well-respected conservative author and research fellow at the Hoover Institution (a part of Stanford University). The man has a bachelor's degree from George Washington University and a master's in philosophy from Oxford. He's been a consultant for NBC News, written numerous books, and has had his work appear in such varied publications as the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, USA Today, the National Review, and Foreign Affairs. YES, he IS a conservative. But, at least as far as I know, that still isn't a crime in this country.......................................................................................................As for Mr. Schweizer having told a lie about Nancy Pelosi, THAT IS A LIE! Mr. Schweizer correctly reported that the workers at the former speaker's vineyard were NOT union employees. And as far as that radio station (KGO in, yeah, you guessed it, San Francisco!!) trying to spin for Mrs. Pelosi, that is quite literally the only thing that they were doing. They specifically cited the 1975 Agricultural Relations Act of 1975 which states that Pelosi would have been prevented from assisting her workers to form a union - a totally irrelevant point. The act didn't, in other words, prevent Mrs. Pelosi from hiring unions worker (UFW) right from the very get go.......................................................................................................... And this isn't the only example of the Congresswoman NOT hiring union workers. She and her husband also own a large stake in several hotels/resorts and restaurants. None of these particular businesses hire union employees, either. I guess, folks, that the Congresswoman's relationship with union labor consists of only TAKING their money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
When this weasel was caught in his lie, Schweizer tried to weasel out of responsibility for lying by claiming, "It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard". Fact checking his own book isn't his responsibility? Do you actually buy this nonsense?
IMO a liar is a liar is a liar. You are aware that unionization in the US is quite low, are you not?
When people want to get the job done, they tend to try to avoid unions and instead look for those who do the best job possible for a fair wage.
Publicly, Pelosi favors unions because they force workers to give her and her colleagues in the same party $$$$ in campaign contributions.
Unionization is actually quite high in the US due to lack of worker choice. Over high, in fact. If membership were made to be voluntary, membership would go down by half.
Belonging to a union isn't an option most places. I've never worked anywhere where I could join a union if I so chose. I think that if it was "voluntary" like dmarks says -- that is, it was an option for ALL workers -- unionization would skyrocket.
BTW dmarks, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says, "In 2010, the union membership rate --the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union -- was 11.9 percent...".
I would not call that "quite high". In fact, I'd say that anyone who thinks that 11.9 percent is "quite high" is quite out of touch with reality.
WD said: "Belonging to a union isn't an option most places. I've never worked"
It's an option anywhere. You can pay any money you want to a union. That's fine with me.
However, about 10% of American workers are forced to give large sums of money to unions against their will. That's just not right.
I call it "quite high" because this number is way too large due to the huge proportion of that 11.9% who don't want to be in the union and/or never chose to be in it. There are even many workplaces where NONE of the workers ever voted to join the union.
I am quite in touch with reality. Yes, 11.9% is quite high.
Of the 11.9 percent of workers who belong to unions -- 10 percent don't want to be members? Can you please link to an authoritative source that verifies this? I doubt you can. I think you just pulled this stat out of your ass.
The fact that union members, on average, receive higher wages (I've quoted the amount here before, and it is significant) more than justifies the money paid in union dues. It's an investment I seriously doubt most union members would be willing to give up. Your claims just don't comport with reality dmarks.
WD: "Of the 11.9 percent of workers who belong to unions -- 10 percent don't want to be members?"
The "10% of 11.9" idea comes from your poor reading comprehension. I was being quite clear.
It's half of existing union members who want out. Roughly. Considering that it is typically a slim majority that votes for a union, and workers who want to work at the place after the vote aren't even given a choice.
Unions know that there's a slim margin of support, if any, which is why they are so dead set against further votes to verify certification. What are they so afraid of?
Anyway, let's check some typical union votes: 57% in favor (from Connecticut Politics. That fits my roughly half claim.
In another election earlier this year, the pro-union forces narrowly beat the workers who wanted to stay independent, 994 to 870.
"Can you please link to an authoritative source that verifies this? I doubt you can. I think you just pulled this stat out of your ass."
Do you honestly think that every time a union wins a vote, it is overwhelming or something?
"The fact that union members, on average, receive higher wages (I've quoted the amount here before, and it is significant)"
Nicely cooked numbers, and intentionally misleading. They conveniently leave out the hundreds of thousands of auto workers who are unemployed or are making much less: former union workers who end up out of the stats because the unions forced the factories to be closed.
"...more than justifies the money paid in union dues."
If it is such an obvious win for the workers, why are you so afraid of giving the workers a choice? They'd all join and pay dues, right?
But the fact is that it's much more complicated than your simple "you will get more money" claim. That is why in so many cases, workers vote for their interests and turn unions down.
My claims completely match reality.
dmarks: The "10% of 11.9" idea comes from your poor reading comprehension.
That isn't my idea. My idea is that you said -- of the ll.9 percent of the workforce that is unionized -- 1.9 percent want to be in the union and 10 percent do not. I based my conclusion on your words, exactly as you typed them. My conclusion has nothing to do with "poor reading comprehension". My reading comprehension is actually above average.
It doesn't matter how many people voted for the union and how many voted against. What matter is that a majority voted for it. That is how democracy works. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, yet I was forced to accept George bush as my president for 8 years (even though I think Gore and Kerry would have won their respective elections if not for Republican dirty tricks, but that's another discussion).
The bottom line is I strongly support democracy in the workplace. Right To Work For Less laws diminish the power of unions, and thus the negotiating power of the people who support the union. What about their rights?
Also, just because someone initially votes against unionization doesn't mean that they don't later change their mind and come to view the union favorably.
People are never laid off because unions demand wages that are too high. The number of people working is a reflection how much demand there is for the product or service. If the company determines that the demand is there... they'll hire someone to fill that demand (or not lay them off).
Your suggestion that a company would chose not to fill that demand (out of resentment for the union and the wage they negotiated) is silly.
What did he say that was a lie, wd? He said that Pelosi didn't use union workers for her vineyard and she DIDN'T. Yes, union membership is low but UFW workers in CA could have been readily had. Face it, bra, the lady is a hypocrite.
What did he lie about? YOU point out the lie in your own post! He lied by leaving out information. It's called a lie of omission.
Also, I should "face it" that your point of view is the only valid point of view? You're entitled to state your point of view. You can try to convince others that you're right. In my case you were not successful. I do not believe Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite.
The "information" that he left out was irrelevant. He never accused Mrs. Pelosi of not helping these people to organize a union. He accused of her of not hiring UFW union pickers. And she didn't. Ergo, no lie.
Actually he accused her of being a hypocrite (apparently you're forgetting the title of his book). The information he left out shows that isn't the case. Ergo, he did lie.
The workers are free to unionize if they wish. Is Nancy Pelosi stopping them from doing so? If you could provide proof of this I'd give your charges of hypocrisy serious consideration.
My assessment of the situation is that Peter Schweizer lied, got caught, and now you're excusing the weasel with a shameful argument based on semantics.
BTW, of what relevance is Schweizer's background? In a previous comment I brought up the impressive background of Alan Grayson and you dismissed it as irrelevant. Is a person's impressive background valid when you bring it up and invalid when I do?
Personally I think the guy is scum. I reached this conclusion after looking over the titles of his books and noticing that one is called "Makers and Takers". This is Republican class warfare at it's worst.
Job well done Will. I barely knew who this guy was before, and now I hate his guts. Whatever he says I'm going to believe the exact opposite.
No, he did not lie. What he said was 100% true. Pelosi could in fact have easily hired UFW workers and SHE DID NOT. And, yes, Pelosi IS a hypocrite. What else would you call a person who extols the virtues of something but then who acts 100% the opposite in her personal life? It's textbook, dude.............Mr. Schweizer's background is relevant in that it shows that his work has been printed in a variety of venues and has apparently passed muster in every one.............So, how many African-Americans DID Michael (affirmative action is vital except when it applies to me) Moore really hire? More than 3? Less than 3?
Mr. Schweizer NEVER accused Pelosi of trying to prevent these workers from unionizing (they could probably barely speak English). Yet another red herring. He accused her of not HIRING union pickers and SHE DID NOT. Extolling the virtues of something and not following through. Pure unadulterated hypocrisy.
Semantics!!? You're the one who's twisting the meaning. A person leaves out irrelevant information that he may or may not have known about is a lie? Er, excuse me, a lie of omission. Give me a break. Do you even know what a lie is. A lie is saying something that you know to be untrue and trying to pass it off as the truth. So, even if this information was relevant (and it clearly wasn't), you have no idea if he was lying (er, I mean, omitting) because you have no idea if he knew about it.
ok lets see:
dmarks: The "10% of 11.9" idea comes from your poor reading comprehension.
"That isn't my idea."
It is your idea alone. I said "huge proportion of that 11.9% who don't want to be in the union", not 10% of them.
You did not base your conclusion on my words at all.
"What matter is that a majority voted for it. That is how democracy works."
And what is ridiculous here is that in unionization, the majority votes to take rights and choices and money away from workers, for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
Democracy is for running government. Not for running our private lives.
"even though I think Gore and Kerry would have won their respective elections if not for Republican dirty tricks, but that's another discussion"
That you *think* so shows you are a sore loser who is grossly uninformed about these elections.
"Right To Work ... diminish the power of unions"
The diminish the power of unions and increase the power of workers in direct proportions.
"... and thus the negotiating power of the people who support the union. What about their rights?"
Tough. I'm not going to cry either because the NRA and ACLU are weaker because they have less power due to all the people not forced to join them.
"People are never laid off because unions demand wages that are too high."
This happens all the time. I live in Michigan, where this exact situation has nearly wiped out the auto industry.
"Your suggestion that a company would chose not to fill that demand (out of resentment for the union and the wage they negotiated) is silly."
Actually, the companies either go bankrupt, or they go to states like South Carolina where they can pay fair wages and not worry about unqualified people (union thugs) attempting to make management decisions.
And my suggestion is not silly at all. Why would a company choose to pay a worker $70 an hour to do shoddy work? Yet this is what the unions caused to happen in Chrysler.
America works best when it says "Union No". And I am one of those who looks for the union label and based purchasing decisions on its presence.
So, if you want to call someone a hypocrite... you DON'T investigate, learn all the facts and build a case against them...
You make a very specific charge, and then when evidence is presented that proves your charges of hypocrisy are wrong... you say to whomever is presenting the exonerating evidence... "That isn't the precise accusation I was making"?
It was his book. It was his obligation to know about the information he left out. If he didn't know it he should have. Defending him by saying he's not responsible for knowing all the facts because he did a half-assed job doesn't cut it.
dmarks, you say "tough" when I pointed out the fact that people have the right to vote for a union...
In response I say TOUGH to the people who vote against it. I'm not for taking away the rights of people who vote for unions in deference to misinformed workers who believe they will always be treated fairly if they negotiate directly with their employers.
Gore and Kerry WON their respective elections. I don't think it, I know it. You are the one who is grossly uninformed. Al Gore won the 2000 election and John Kerry won the 2004 election.
No Chrysler union worker was ever paid $70 an hour. That is a conservative lie. A CBS News story from 9/22/2009 says, "the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just not true".
The article also points out that "Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories [similar wages to those paid by Chrysler]". The claim that the automakers got into trouble due to union greed is a total Right-wing fabrication.
WD said: "dmarks, you say "tough" when I pointed out the fact that people have the right to vote for a union..."
That is flat-out wrong. Read my comment. I was saying "tough" to the union backers that a lot of workers oppose the union.
"In response I say TOUGH to the people who vote against it."
Why not support BOTH choices? Join the union if you like it, stay out if you do not.
"I'm not for taking away the rights of people who vote for unions in deference to misinformed workers who believe they will always be treated fairly if they negotiate directly with their employers."
How arrogant and contemptible of working people. The workers who makes these choice are informed and make wise decisions in thier own interests.
"Gore and Kerry WON their respective elections."
And Dewey defeated Truman. As long as you are on an alternate reality kick.
"I don't think it, I know it."
You aren't doing either. If you believe the actual losers won, you are not thinking. If you believe in something false, that is not knowledge.
"You are the one who is grossly uninformed. Al Gore won the 2000 election and John Kerry won the 2004 election."
Unfortunately for you, we have so many things. Such as the historic record. Facts. Constitutional law. People with memories.
We can't just make up stuff and expect people to believe it.
"No Chrysler union worker was ever paid $70 an hour."
Actually, it is factual truth. It has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. It is an honest figure that counts ALL compensation and benefits. See the facts.
"The claim that the automakers got into trouble due to union greed is a total Right-wing fabrication."
It's only half of the story. The other half is how the unions destroyed the product. The unions prevent the company from firing bad workers, and they meddle in management decisions they aren't qualified to do.
So, not only were the Chrysler workers paid $70 an hour, but they produced the worst cars sold in North America. They just did, and do a piss-poor job.
In contrast, Toyota, Honda, etc do without unions. As a result, they pay a decent fair wage, and have a high quality product.
"And this isn't the only example of the Congresswoman NOT hiring union workers. She and her husband also own a large stake in several hotels/resorts and restaurants. None of these particular businesses hire union employees, either."
And back on the subject. I don't blame her. She wants to pay a fair wage. She wants qualified managers to make management decisions, and no one else. She probably does not like the idea of keeping bad maids and lousy cooks, and wants the freedom to fire them to keep a quality operation going.
Unions get in the way of all of this.
dmarks, your hatred for your fellow Americans is palpable. dmarks clearly hates these perceived bad workers who need to join unions to protect them from being fired. Which is the only reason anyone would be pro union, right? Because they want to goof off and be overpaid?
Let me guess... these pro union people you hate are more likely to be Democrats? That would be in line with what this a-hole Peter Schweizer believes. The treatise of one of his books is that "conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less, blah blah blah".
I call it class warfare. Which is the basis for dmarks' longing for "fair wages" -– fairer for the greedy CEOs who want more of the profit created by the workers for themselves. This is why he isn't concerned about fair wages for CEOs (who are raking in record amounts) but IS concerned about "fair wages" for workers (whose wages have been flat for the last 30 years -– even as their productivity has gone up).
dmarks: Now don't start defending this like you defended Rahm Emanual calling the mentally disabled "f***ing retards".
The only place that happened is in your imagination. I criticized him for this comment. And he was referring to Liberals by the way. His comment was not directed at the mentally challenged.
Hey, wd. Mr. Schweizer also left out that it was sunny and 62 when MRS. Pelosi decided to NOT HIRE union pickers. What the guy said was 100% true and what the radio station in Pelosi's own home town put forth was totally irrelevant. Schweizwer NEVER accused Pelosi interfering with these workers organizing. He simply said that she didn't hire union pickers when she easily could have. Pushing for unionization and then not following through on it in your personal life is textbook hypocrisy. Pelosi and Bachmann are BOTH frigging hypocrites.
Will: what the radio station in Pelosi's own home town put forth was totally irrelevant.
Peter Schweizer admitted it was relevant when he said, "It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard".
If it really weren't relevant he would have said just that... instead of offering up this lame excuse.
Will: He simply said that she didn't hire union pickers when she easily could have.
So you've read the book? It's not my understanding that this is what he said. I thought he was talking about the people currently working for Pelosi at her vineyard, not people she could have hired.
I think you're modifying his original argument to make it appear as though he didn't lie.
In any case, I don't think you've proven that Pelosi could "easily" have hired union pickers. I can think of multiple scenarios where that might not be the case.
Yes, I've read the book. The point was that Pelosi didn't hire UFW pickers. And, yes, in the middle of California wine country, she clearly and easily could have.............As to how he responded, I haven't a clue as to why he did so. What I do know is that he never claimed that Pelosi PREVENTED these people from ever organizing.
Will: he never claimed that Pelosi PREVENTED these people from ever organizing.
I didn't say he did. I said her preventing her workers from organizing is the ONLY thing you could tell me that would convince me that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite (provided there was proof). Otherwise I believe there is no case against her.
I'm convinced Peter Schweizer's book is a load of crap, and so is Peter Schweizer. You can quite easily tell from the titles of his books that he's a partisan hack. Yet you voluntarily read such obvious tripe?
My guess as to why would be -- you could see from the title of the book that Peter Schweizer was going to tell you something you wanted to hear.
Post a Comment