Obama's first post-nuclear option judge is a union buster
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/22/starbucks_union_buster_is_ironic_winner_after_liberals_push_nuclear_option/>>>
Unions have thus been at the forefront of recent efforts to secure filibuster reforms.
So its ironic that one of the most acute and immediate beneficiaries of those efforts will be Patricia Ann Millett, a woman who helped Starbucks stymie unions. Millett is one of three D.C. Circuit nominees tapped by President Obama and blocked by Republicans; after invoking the so-called nuclear option, the Senate voted 55-43 Thursday to move forward on Millett.
I find it troubling, because Ms. Millett and her firm Akin Gump went well beyond what I consider the bounds of decency and morality in the very aggressive anti-union campaign they really designed and helped Starbucks carry out, Daniel Gross, a founding member of the Starbucks Workers Union, told Salon. The campaign that Ms. Millett and her firm architected and really co-led, and continues to co-lead with Starbucks, involved all of the scorched earth tactics which are starting to come to light more and more. The White House, the AFL-CIO and Starbucks did not provide comment on Milletts Starbucks work in response to Thursday inquiries.
>>>
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It hurts my brain just to read that, I'm supposed to believe the story written by this twerp?
I'm betting that she worked for a firm and the firm was involved with a Starbucks issue and that's as far as it goes.
I hate Starbucks and support unions but I also have standards with respect to fair reporting.
And with respect to proper grammar.
"Architected", indeed!
DavidDvorkin
(19,406 posts)It was bound to spread.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)"oversaw", "masterminded", "engineered".
There isn't really a much of a connection between legal strategy and software or IT architecture, so I still think it's a poor application.
Though I appreciate your pointing that out, it's used as a verb in some circles, just not in architecture or, AFAIK, in law.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Or at least they used to.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)
George II This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vadem
(2,596 posts)have a better profile from democrats.
I'm asking why? Why does Obama do this sort of thing if he is a democrat that should be for all the unions? It is very discouraging.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)the work they do on behalf of clients.
Glenn Greenwald is not to be criticized for choosing to represent America's most notorious neo-Nazi (who is serving time for threatening the life of a judge).
Mark Lane is not to be criticized for representing White Supremacy or anti-Semitic groups.
So I guess we need to give Patricia Millett a pass. Unless representing Starbucks is worse than representing neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-Semites.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Greenwald represented the 1st amendment speech rights of neo-nazis to help ensure that other groups would not be repressed later. If the article is right, Millett appears to have been representing a Lochnerian theory of contract law that fits snugly in line with the beliefs of Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.
Care to try passing some more bullshit?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Sorry, it was the biggest first-amendment stretch ever.
At any rate, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or vice versa.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What, too many dimensions of chess for you to grasp?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how many here take in consideration the moral/political ramifications of taking a job? Why should lawyers be any different.
As another poster pointed out, lawyers routinely represent clients that the detest ... AND lawyers routinely advocate in court for positions that they do not personally hold. It's a job; not a personal values statement.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm reminded of cases the ACLU has taken on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and if people were honest with themselves ... they wouldn't make such "OMG ... Look what she did" comments.
How many here work in the defense industry (or for a company that supports the defense industry)? If the stats are correct ... that would be most of us; "but that's different!"
Chan790
(20,176 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)putting something behind that: Please indicate your age and where you work and/or have worked (no names required ... a description will do).
I'm pretty certain that wherever you have worked and/or (if degreed) have gone to dchool (in America, or beyond) has been involved in some incident that is morally repugnant to us on the left. And on the chance you are something other than a self-employed artist, I'm equally certain you, personally, have made a job related decision that would have those of on the left shaking our heads.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Note though that I said I make such an assessment regarding my ethics, not those of the left. "To thine own self be true."-Shakespeare I have never taken a job that I find morally or politically repugnant and have passed up those that I didn't like the ramifications of. I do not fit into any tidy little lefty box either.
I don't have to go very far to find decisions that "the left" would find morally-repugnant: My family fortunes were made in land holdings and defense manufacturing.
I'm 34. I went to college in one of the best Political Theory program in the country, at a Catholic university here in DC. I was Catholic (am now an agnostic) and continue to be highly-involved as an alumnus. I was on the alumni input panel that stressed the need for a lay university President a few years back and we hired the first lay President of that institution since WW-II. I was also a leader of the student movements in 2001-2002 that led to the resignation of Bernard Cardinal Law as Chairman of the University Board of Trustees. Two years ago, I was among several thousand alumni co-signers of a letter to the University's commencement speaker, John Boehner, rebuking him as a Catholic for his opposition to anti-poverty measures.
After college I worked as a barista, wrote a feature film, worked as a community organizer, then a literacy activist, then communications and development coordinator, went back to school for culinary education (just for funzies!), after a brief foray into philanthropic banking (managing the financial holdings of large NPOs) I left after they found out I was also feeding information on their criminal mortgage practices to a local DC journalist, got hired as a head of a community organization here in DC, used my culinary education to start a catering company which now pays the bills while I ramp up the business I want to be in: running a small (currently 2 person) boutique full-service Communications, PR and Development firm for NPOs...here my ethics really get to shine...I don't take clients I don't believe in; it's made start-up slower than I like but I don't have to work for or represent scumbags, right-wingers or people whose work makes the world worse.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You are one of the few.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People seem to think it's best to deprive those in the "wrong" of the right to counsel, as if lawyers should decide in their office who is right and who is wrong on a case. Then the unrepresented baddies would supposedly lose in court. That would be a dictatorship of lawyers.
And every case that goes against a union doesn't have to be wrong. In interpreting laws, there are going to be times the court doesn't find for the union based on the law. The unions should win every time? Never going to happen, not for any group, entity, etc.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #10)
Democracyinkind This message was self-deleted by its author.
unblock
(51,974 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)this is the kind of shit that keeps the GOP on life support when Democrats could easily pull their plug.
Nobody is twisting Obama's arm to do this now, and he doesn't have to pick a business toady to pick up a few stray Republican votes.
DLC Democrats have a gift for making the rest of us feel like we've just been kicked in the stomach as soon as we show a glimmer of hope that Democrats we elected are actually going to do what we elected them to do.
Did any Democrat vote for Obama to do this?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)as you can see on this thread they have already circled the wagons
"Just because she busts unions doesn't make her anti-labor"
The president calls himself a moderate Republican. I am too respectful to contradict him, although I guess by "moderate" he means far to the right of Reagan. and yes, those of us who are pro-labor and otherwise liberal will be excoriated after the next election debacle.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)pull them back into the shade and give them a pint of our blood.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)and (like a switch has been thrown) suddenly hallucinate that it's "the President trying to get everyone coverage"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the Millett is a union-buster train has actually read the Union Buttons case that is the "heart" of the characterization? Here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8120884029963301106&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
I did and guess what I found? First, Millett is an appellate litigator ... a appellate litigators, generally, don't have the time or specialized knowledge to design "very aggressive anti-union campaigns." And, the tactics described, I can pretty much assure you were done BEFORE Millett's firm got involved.
Secondly, the "scorched earth tactics" complained of include firing a guy that joined the union after being evaluated as a "marginal performer", and subjected to discipline (because he swore at his supervisor because the supervisor didn't help him during a busy period). The employee was fired when he came into the Starbuck's and got into a loud argument with a different manager, where profanity was used ... again. (the NMRB Hearing Officer up-held the termination.)
And third, did you hear about her representing a death-penalty client that significantly changed (for the better) the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that stood in the way of an appeal of his death sentence?
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)http://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/labor-and-employment/labor-relations-strategic-advice-and-counseling.html
If you want to pretend that Millett was somehow kept out of her firm's Starbucks " union avoidance" campaign you just go right ahead.
She also has filed briefs for the Chamber of Commerce.
Obama made a typical corporatist selection.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you know anything about how law firms and the practice of law works, you just go ahead. I just happen to know that litigators do not get involved in much else than litigation.
But, and more importantly, A JOB IS A JOB, NOT A VALUES STATEMENT.