This message was self-deleted by its author

[madfloridian]

This message was self-deleted by its author (madfloridian) on Sun Jul 12, 2015, 04:04 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Man from Pickens]

1. why private?

because you don't threaten people to their faces in public

[Agschmid]

2. Glad you thought about the source.

Why does the "Private" meeting worry you?

[madfloridian]

3. I fear the full private meeting may not be fully shared with membership completely.

[Agschmid]

4. Should it be?

Aren't the people in charge elected by the full union membership? Aren't they elected to be representatives of the membership?

[delrem]

7. Yes, it fucking well should be.

Representatives are only legitimate when their representation is transparent to those that they represent.

How did that little fact get by you?

[Agschmid]

8. It is transparent, the meeting is announced.

This meme is getting out of hand.

[delrem]

11. BULLSHIT RESPONSE!

"I fear the full private meeting may not be fully shared with membership completely." is the full statement of madfloridian.

Your response:
"4. Should it be?
Aren't the people in charge elected by the full union membership? Aren't they elected to be representatives of the membership?"

And now you assert that to announce that the private meeting occurs, is sufficient for all purposes of "transparency", even though the private meeting isn't shared!

What a POS!

[Agschmid]

14. These are the ELECTED union officials.

They are meeting with all the candidates just as the AFT and the NEA are doing, these meetings are often private, it's better than holding on a street corner.

If the unions don't want this type of leadership then they should elect different leaders.

Let me guess when they negotiate something favorable in private it's no big deal.

This is a MEME nothing more...

And if your comment "what a POS" is directed at me, that's totally innarpropriate and out of line.

[delrem]

21. I disagree.

Elected union officials are answerable to the union, and that means that their activities on behalf of their unions are answerable to their unions, which means that their activities on behalf of their unions must necessarily be transparent to their union membership.

Simple as that. People don't ELECT representatives so as to have rogue operatives going about secret business, the justification for the secretiveness being the fact that they were elected. That's a nonsense argument.

And yes, I do feel JUST exactly that way about your argument to the contrary.

[Agschmid]

24. The unions have gone rogue...

Wow. What a night on DU.

Glad at least your were upfront about what you said.

[delrem]

31. I'm totally upfront about what I said.

You, however, are another kettle of fish.
Your motivations - which are entirely contra-transparency, which are entirely ....

[JDPriestly]

32. California, for example, at the government level has an Open Meetings Act.

If elected representatives at various levels are dealing with each other and making decisions, their discussions have to be public or available to the public.

This is important to insure that elected officials are not doing or saying in private things that are against the interests or conflict with the views and wishes of the people they represent.

The meetings between the union leaders and political leaders should be public. It would be extremely corrupt for the union leaders to make tacit or clear agreements with any one of the candidates in a secret meeting. It would be against the union rules apparently and wrong for the union leaders to agree to quietly throw their weight behind supporting Hillary in exchange for her promising to use her influence to stop the TPP and other trade agreements.

There is utterly no reason for the union leaders to agree to a secret meeting with Hillary unless they are doing something or agreeing to something that they want to hide from union members.

This looks really bad. It has the appearance of corruption. There just is no good excuse for meeting with Hillary in private.

[cui bono]

33. Cheney had secret meetings with energy and no one liked that one bit.

Obama had secret meetings with health insurance companies and most people didn't like that one bit either.

Secret meetings are by definition secret. So that means no, there's no transparency. That's what secret is. It's not that having the meeting is secret, it's that the meeting itself is secret. Think TPP.

[JaneyVee]

12. What? I'm a union member and elected leadership chooses endorsements.

Union leaders choose who will best represent them.

[madfloridian]

16. Maybe that's why many teachers won't join unions anymore.

When I was teaching the union kept us informed of all negotiations, asked for input, and paid attention to it. The final decision was theirs of necessity, but they had a process for input and communication.

[Agschmid]

17. Teachers won't join unions anymore because they often get the benefits without the dues.

And there has been years of systematic "brainwashing" for lack of a better term to be anti-union.

[JaneyVee]

25. Members are obviously free to vote for any candidate they choose.

Some even vote Republican. And I believe polls were conducted as well.

[babylonsister]

5. So what? There's probably a lot of things we don't know yet. nt

[RandySF]

6. Because Trumka is smart.

And and the AFL have a lis of unresolved issues and realizes that, if 2016 is good to us, he realizes he might have a friendlier Congress to work with as well. He doesn't want it to go public and have the press run around say Hillary agreed to a quid pro quo.

[bigtree]

9. does this meeting bother you, as well?

NEA President Lily Eskelsen García meets with Senator Bernie Sanders

June 19, 2015

NEA president Lily Eskelsen García met with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) as part of the Association’s recommendation process for the 2016 presidential campaign. NEA, the largest union in the country with nearly 3 million members, launched in earnest its recommendation process earlier this year. Last week, President Eskelsen García met with Secretary Hillary Clinton. She also met today with former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. All viable presidential candidates from both political parties were invited to participate in NEA’s presidential recommendation process.

http://usngin.milnz.co.nz/2015/06/19/nea-president-lily-eskelsen-garcia-meets-with-senator-bernie-sanders/

[madfloridian]

13. Only if they don't share all with the membership openly.

That appears to be the problem AFT is encountering today. The membership doesn't remember voting, when or how. They want an explanation.

Also there is a difference in Garcia and Weingarten.

[bigtree]

23. what makes you think the details of the meeting were shared

...any more than Clinton's will be?

[delrem]

15. I doubt if such an open meeting would bother O'Malley, either.

It's the closed door meetings that are bothersome, esp. when $$billions$$ are being thrown around.

[bigtree]

19. what makes that meeting any more open than Clinton's?

it's a one-on-one with the president of the organization

[bigtree]

18. you realize Sanders is going to have a meeting with the AFL-CIO's executive council, as well

"During its gathering in Silver Spring, Maryland, on July 29-30, the AFL-CIO's executive council will also have separate meetings with Clinton rivals former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders."

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/clinton-to-face-grilling-by-union-leaders-on-trade-economic-issues.html

I doubt that's a 'public' meeting either.

[Agschmid]

20. I'm pretty sure they will do it in a rally hall and 10,000 people will attend.

But hey choose your battles.

[bigtree]

26. where do you see that reported?

...the rally hall and 10,000 people? Or, was that sarcasm?

[Agschmid]

27. Sorry...

It's late I forgot.

[bigtree]

28. I just got that

...my fault.

[Agschmid]

29. No big deal

I should probably lay off the snark for the night.

[madfloridian]

22. They all had private meetings with the AFT also.

But the private discussions must be made public to the membership.

That's why all the upset today.

[bigtree]

30. I guess I'm just wondering about Hillary highlighted in this post

...as if she's getting preferential treatment.

[madfloridian]

41. Hillary got the endorsement. The NEA will endorse.

She will win. The Clintons always win. Or maybe the Bushes will win again, who knows.

[bigtree]

46. they're perhaps more pragmatic about who they think they'll ultimately be dealing with

...unions are as political as anything else relying on politicians for support.

[madfloridian]

48. Of course, isn't that what I just said?

In so many words? Hillary will be the one they deal with. Don't make waves. But I will still vote Bernie.

Things are different since Dean was so easily dumped in 2004.

Times have changed drastically. Obama's administration has gone far down the road in destroying public schools in the pursuit of Bush's privatization policies.

People have changed. They aren't as naive. Change will come, but we will fight back strongly this time.

[chillfactor]

34. why not? n/t

[LuvLoogie]

35. Most meetings between principals are held in private.

There will probably be some negotiation.

[pnwmom]

36. Get real. What do you expect? That she'd invite the press?

Do you think Bernie has never had private meetings with possible supporters?

[madfloridian]

37. Of course. They all do. But the findings and discussions should be openly available.

Please don't tell me to "get real". I am so heartsick over people like you that I have respected and often agreed with. But there are about 10 here who shut me out completely for supporting Bernie. That's sad.

[msongs]

38. OMG hillary should never be allowed to have private meetings ever again nt

[madfloridian]

42. Cute, and a little rude.

[madfloridian]

39. So now there is general support for not involving the membership in endorsements?

Things sure are changing.

[bigtree]

43. you must be new to unions

...they elect leaders to make endorsement decisions. Their processes usually involve polling and surveys, as well as candidate interviews and sometimes forums.

There isn't normally a direct vote from members on those endorsements. That's what they elect leaders to do. Times haven't changed. It's been that way for ages.

[madfloridian]

45. Only belonged for 33 years. I am stupid about most everything according to you and rest of DU

A little tired of being called ignorant when I was a part of unions for 33 years.

You guys can relax. Hillary will get the endorsements of the teachers' union, or maybe O'Malley.

Bernie won't.

Doesn't matter. People will vote as they wish.

I have seen the Iraq war justified, now I see justifying only the union leadership endorsing.

If I posted that the sky was blue...by damn it would be argued about that.

I will vote Bernie for sure in the primary.

[bigtree]

47. the sore spot then is that Bernie didn't get a nod from them

...but you'll still represent me and my view as unduly partisan.

You're awfully defensive, but don't seem to care a wit about the interests of anyone not geared toward a Sanders victory on this issue of unions. I think you either need a thicker hide or a more convincing argument.

Nothing's changed in 30 plus years about the endorsement process. What's changed this week at DU is there's ire that Hillary is getting consideration, rather than some folks' candidate.

[madfloridian]

49. No, I think it is time for a change in thinking.

I tried to be nice today, but it doesn't seem to matter. Not going to bother with any more of that from you.

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. It's not confusing to me.

>>>>
Teachers are confused as their union leadership is not being upfront with them. >>>>>

I've been watching them ( AFT/UFT leadership) for 30 years.

"Confusing" would be if *anything* about the endorsement process was open, democratic and aboveboard.

That's not how they work.

[bigtree]

44. I hear complaints like yours from folks opposed to unions

...decisions don't reflect membership; why pay dues for political activism which doesn't support some members views; etc..

DU is trending anti-union lately in pursuit of a Sanders endorsement sweep.

[madfloridian]

50. Deleting this thread because it ain't worth it.