Over a dozen unions to sit out Democratic convention over choice of NC

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

More than a dozen trade unions plan to sit out the 2012 Democratic convention because of their anger over the site of the meeting in a right-to-work state and their frustration over Democrats' struggles to create jobs.

If unions don't participate, it would deprive the party of millions of dollars that would have been spent on sky boxes and other sponsorships that usually help underwrite the convention. The move could pose a larger problem for President Barack Obama next year if an increasingly dispirited base of labor activists becomes so discouraged that it doesn't get the rank-and-file to the polls in its usual strong numbers.

The unions _ all part of the AFL-CIO's building and construction trades unit _ told party officials this week they are gravely disappointed that labor was not consulted before Democrats settled on Charlotte, N.C., where there are no unionized hotels.

"We find it troubling that the party so closely associated with basic human rights would choose a state with the lowest unionization rate in the country due to regressive policies aimed at diluting the power of workers," Mark Ayers, president of the building trades unit, wrote in a letter to Democratic Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/d9p2mjlg0/apnewsbreak-over-a-dozen-unions-to-sit-out-democratic-convention-over-choice-of-nc.html

[polichick]

1. Can't blame 'em - does the party represent unions or not?

[madrchsod]

the washington-chicago democratic party does`t but....

we represent the rest of democratic party.

it`s going to be interesting who will blink first.

[polichick]

8. It sure will be interesting!

[SugarShack]

352. This is good trouble, the state parties have been doing this for years pissing unions off!

State or national, it's s disgrace! They do this in lots of places at state conventions, then hold the natl convention at a union hotel....and pretend like they support unions. Maybe now...this will reign in the states that practice this way???

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. No, the party represents voters

Some of whom are members of unions, many of whom are not.

[polichick]

6. Okay, does the party represent the rights of voters who are in unions?

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Of course. But boycotting a state because unions are not strong there doesn't help the cause

[polichick]

13. Of course? In what way - lately?

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. The Obama administration made is easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/business/11union.html

[polichick]

17. Good example, but I still see their point in not coming to NC - and the Party's choice...

...has everything to do with electoral politics so I see that point too.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. The location has already been set, so it is really a moot issue at this point

[polichick]

23. Yes, it was chosen based on electoral politics - but the unions sitting out...

...isn't a moot point. It's a strong principled statement.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. It's a strong stupid statement

Unions would be better off using the convention as an opportunity to reach out to NC workers rather than snubbing them.

[russspeakeasy]

46. "opportunity to reach out" ?? I think that road has been traveled

and there was no one home..

[Enthusiast]

61. We can see from your picture

how you feel about unions.

As far as I'm concerned I wouldn't blame the labor movement if they started their own third party tomorrow. There has been nothing but disrespect from this white house starting with their position on reforming education.

[Marnie]

79. Totally agree

[on point]

180. I agree 1000+%. The whole Arne Duncan fiasco is another Obama failure.

[yardwork]

183. Gotta agree. Arne Duncan - another terrible Obama pick.

[Synicus Maximus]

220. Why would a group that represents 13% of the population want

to start their own party, taking 13% of the people from the Democrats thereby insuring the Repubs win?

[Trajan]

268. Well ... You more or less created a setup there

Nice cozy little strawman there .... Time to tear it down ....

If they take their 13%, and then add to that number the MANY MANY disillusioned Liberals and Progressives who are also pissed at the Dems for one reason or another, then we dont have just 13%, but some other, higher percentage .... a number I, and you, do not know ....

I for one think the Dems need a swift kick in the ass to start dancing with who brought'm ...

[swilton]

293. ++++++

I am certain that there are multiple reasons BESIDES the selection of the state of NC for the unions to decide to sit this one out....

And if you add to that 13% liberals and Progressives who are not in unions actively but want them to succeed for the benefit of the middle class - add to that environmentalists and the numerous peace activists who have already said that they would not support Obama - that is a sizable group.

[Divernan]

281. Any American who works for a living benefits from the union's hard fought for protections

Paid Vacation Days
Family Leave
Paid Sick Days
Work Safety Laws
Child Labor Laws
Maternity Leave
Health Insurance
Pensions

Do you get the picture yet?!?!?!?

13 percent, my ass!

Only the trust fund babies have not benefited from the unions.

[Enthusiast]

368. "Only the trust fund babies have not benefited from the unions."

Born on third thinking they hit a triple. Can you say Koch Brothers and Dubya Bush? I knew you could.

[Enthusiast]

367. Look at this for an example of

why you are wrong. 77% of the American people want to preserve collective bargaining.

[olegramps]

403. That 13% would grow to a overwhelming majority of working folks.

[coalition_unwilling]

410. The Labor Movement may only count 13% of the population

among its membership currently. But the Labor Movement represents the American working class' interests, unlike the current Democratic Party. A 3rd party spearheaded by the Labor Movement and built around true representation of the working class might consign Democrats to the same fate as the Whigs, and deservedly so, imho.

[Freddie Stubbs]

426. The nation's largest teachers' union has already endorsed President Obama's reelection:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/07/neas_delegates_approve_obama_e.html

[Enthusiast]

431. They are misguided if they have..........nt

[Major Hogwash]

437. No, they're highly educated.

They know what is going on in this country and it ain't pretty.
Obama is not busting unions.

[pscot]

68. The stupid started with the top-down decision

to hold the convention in N.C. So much for transparency, to say nothing of inclusion.

[kath]

239. Yep - a stupid decision - since when is Charlotte (or NC) a Democratic town or state??

Jeebus.
Unions have every reason to be pissed as hell.

[hack89]

402. Obama won NC in 2008.

with a razor thin margin. It is a state he can't afford to loose in 2012.

[JDPriestly]

117. It's not the NC workers that the unions want to snub.

It's the hotel owners and the other business owners and above all the state legislature that has a right-to-work law.

Who owns the Democratic Party? I'm really beginning to wonder about it.

[jwirr]

178. Absolutely and having lived in Iowa - another right to work state I

can tell you that those laborers in NC will understand.

[AlbertCat]

276. those laborers in NC will understand.

Yes we will...

But not any conservative workers who have been taught to hate unions.
Charlotte is also a big evangelical center too.

What WERE THEY THINKING????

Maybe they're going after the hispanic vote without being obvious by going to the SW.

Maybe they think the Dems will like it here so much they'll move here! :shrug:

Maybe it was the cheapest place :crazy:

I live on the coast in Wilmington. And I visit Durham, Chapel Hill, Asheville and occasionally Raleigh. But there's just no reason to visit Charlotte. I'm no sports fan and I hate traffic and fundies.

[Ken Burch]

136. It's not possible to reach out in a convention held in a right-to-work state

Any massive business given to a right-to-work state is automatically an endorsement of the status quo. It was the same with corporate investment in South Africa in the apartheid era(all of which strengthened the racist system).

We SHOULD have had the convention in Detroit or somewhere else that's struggling. Not in a state with smug prosperity for the few and misery for the many.

[tavalon]

247. Correct on all counts.

[kimsarah]

323. Detroit yes

Detroit would be most appropriate, or Milwaukee or Cleveland.

[Ken Burch]

332. And if we had it in Cleveland, have Dennis do the keynote speech.

n/t.

[kimsarah]

335. That would be

inspirational and light a fire under how ever many Dem supporters are left by then.

[brentspeak]

162. The unions are snubbing the Democratic leadership, not NC's workers n/t

[Kingofalldems]

211. Unions aren't snubbing workers in NC

That is an out and out slanderous lie.

[No Elephants]

408. Unions don't have to attend a political convention in order to reach out to NC workers.

They can do that at their own convenience and on their own terms. Besides, the boycott is a way of reaching out, whether y0u agree with it or not

This is a better way to kill several birds with one stone. One, make a very public statement to anti-labor states that there are consequences to that. Two, they make union supporters like me more conscious of where to visit and not visit. Three, they send a message to the Democratic Party.

It's puzzling to me that most of this thread is about what the unions should have to put up with for the good of the Democratic Party, who have a lot to do with this nation's laws and have gotten enormous help from unions. Donations, votes, GOTV volunteers.

As just one example, the unions immediately called out their members to show up at the town meetings on hcr to counter the NRA astroturfers who had started showing up with guns strapped to their calves and everywhere else. And, because of the long standing loyalty to Democrats, they've had to take all kinds of cra

p from RWErs, who go to events like that in the hopes of photographing some union member doing something wrong. Not to mention that part of the reason RWers are so determined to destroy unions is that unions donate to Democrats and the DNC. That gives RWers a better shot at their wet dream of a permanent Republican majority.

IMO, the focus should be on how the Party can have tighter relations with the unions, not what the unions ought to do for the Party.

[Ken Burch]

128. It's not even GOOD electoral politics

We're certain to lose the entire South in 2012, no matter what. Kowtowing to the textile bosses and the local millionaire feudalists in North Carolina can't do the party any good at all.

There's never a reason to hold a convention in a state you already know you can't win.

[yardwork]

182. North Carolina went for Obama in 2008. I'm sure that that's the reason for this.

I understand and support the unions' position on this, but I also see why the Democratic Party chose North Carolina. They're hoping that NC will go for Obama in 2012.

Edited for typo in election year.

[Ken Burch]

187. He'd have won easily without NC.

And he's way behind there now, with the Tea Party insanity holding majority sway there.

[yardwork]

195. He needs the bankers' money. Bank of America is based in Charlotte.

The former CEO of Bank of America wrote a letter to the Charlotte paper encouraging people to vote for Obama in 2008. This was unheard of.

Gosh, do you think that Obama might feel an obligation to pay back the bankers for their support in 2008? /sarcasm

Wall Street and the financial industry helped elect Obama in 2008. He's been repaying the favor over and over again ever since.

[Ken Burch]

208. You're right.

Didn't REM do a song about being "Loyal to the Bank of America"?

Oh yeah...it was THIS one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2wET1OlK4Q&feature=related

[Tunkamerica]

209. Good to hear what's going on here from Alaska.

I believe the midterms were a blip that people regret.

[Ken Burch]

212. I think the peole get it

Will the leaders of this party listen, though?

Or will they insist on the timid centrist "bipartisan" approach that makes us lose over and over?

[Ken Burch]

226. The midterms were the right-wing of the party's fault

And people in Alaska(a state that ISN'T right-to-work)know as much about national politics as any other people do.

Here's the thing...no Dem that runs for statewide office in NC ever runs on a program or repealing the right-to-work laws. Given that, what good is it to even try to elect Dems to statewide office there? It's not like there are any issues that could possibly outweigh that, and in any case it's not really possible to be distanced from unions and STILL be progressive on anything else.

Holding the convention in Charlotte means endorsing the right-to-work status quo. It means giving up on ever making NC a labor state. Why are you ok with that?

Pro-worker legislation can never be passed through the election of anti-union politicians.

[tavalon]

248. "right to work" is an amazingly Orwellian term, isn't it?

[Ken Burch]

251. Indeed

Sort of like "holy war".

[tavalon]

364. So, I'm led to wonder yet again

What is wrong with the Democrats?

[Ken Burch]

379. in terms of our party's leadership

the three main problems are

1)Contempt for our party's core values;

2)Excessive comfort with the center-right status quo(and, on some personal levels, perhaps, too much self-interest in preserving the same);

3)Fear of electoral success, because such success, if widespread enough, would force them to actually take the grassroots of the party (and its needs and wishes)seriously.

[yardwork]

392. Excuse me, but there are lots of reasons to elect Democrats to statewide office.

While the labor laws in NC are terrible, there are other issues as well. We're seeing this now that the Republicans have a majority in North Carolina state legislature for the first time in over 100 years. Environmental protections are being stripped. The entire education system is under siege. The Republicans who have seized control are doing incredible damage.

[Ken Burch]

424. Ohio did too. Why couldn't THEY get the convention?

Would that mean having it in a city where there would be too many ordinary, non-CEO types in camera range?

[Tunkamerica]

206. It's cute you think NC has textiles.

And we went for Obama last election. We have a democratic governor. This is the first time we've had a republican controlled state government in 100 years (thanks tea-party). But, you're an expert on NC, so I'll leave it to you.

[Ken Burch]

218. Most of the non-Republican state governments you had since 1911

were segregationist(Terry Sanford was a fluke exception, John Hunt just let the right-wing tell him what to do, and other than the one DINO you had last time, it's been pure neanderthal state politics there). We've never seen the Dems in your state challenge the rich. Even John Edwards ran as a bland corporate toady in his Senate race(he didn't start pretending to care about the poor or the workers until he was running for president).

North Carolina's chances to join modern life ended when it refused to elect Harvey Gantt.

And ok...tobacco rather than textiles...I stand corrected.

Doesn't change the larger points.

It's not worth trying to carry your state if it means trafficking with anti-union business types.



It's meaningless to carry NC's electoral votes if you only do it by leaving the workers and the poor out in the cold and the power structure unchallenged.

[klook]

301. Sitting here in Georgia, North Carolina looks like a progressive paradise.

I know it's not saying much, but overall NC is the least regressive state in the Southeast. There are huge numbers of braindead teabaggers there, as there are in every southern state -- but there are a lot of intelligent, progressive people there also (particularly in Raleigh-Durham and Asheville).

[Ken Burch]

313. The only chance of making anything better in N.C.

is to give up on nominating wishy-washy bland centrists and nominate outright economic populists instead.

[yardwork]

399. True that. We're under attack just like the rest of the country, though.

[Tunkamerica]

366. so all of us in nc should just give up? stop caring?

it's pointless to preach to the choir

[Ken Burch]

370. No, you shouldn't give up.

Just accept the fact that it isn't worth settling for getting bland centrists elected. The only meaningful victories are clear wins on real differences on the issues.

It's not worth electing somebody like John Edwards(at least not as he was when he ran for the Senate).

And it's impossible to defeat the right in places like NC by making deals with corporate types.

The ONLY way to win in NC is for all of you to get in touch with your inner Norma Raes.

Centrism can't do it. Kowtowing to corporate types and the Bank of America can't do it(there's no difference between a "pro-business Democrat" and a Republican).

Give the majority in NC who AREN'T winners in the economy a real reason to feel that the Dems are actually fighting to put THEM first.

Is that so hard?

As Jim Hightower once pointed out, the only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

[Tunkamerica]

374. Ok. Accepted.

Now what are you doing in Alaska? I assume you guys have stopped taking oil money. I know there aren't corporate interests there, and your legislature/governor isn't trying to eliminate collective bargaining. I assume there are no unopposed Republicans vying for congress. And there's no way you elected a babbling moron to governor.


You know what? Never mind. Trying to dictate how your state should act from 4000 miles away is pointless.

[Ken Burch]

377. I accept that you have a right to have an opinion on my state as well

I'll try to give straight answers to your questions.

1)We have only one congressional seat, and its incumbent is an "R"-his name is Don Young, and the Dems have actually given him some close races in recent years(although not last time). We also have a sort-of-good Dem senator, Mark Begich(he could be better but he did defeat Ted "Senator-For-Life" Stevens after the old buzzard had held the seat for 40 years.

2)There was a short-lived effort to eliminate collective bargaining for state workers-but it didn't go anywhere(due in part to the fact that our state Senate is split 10-10, with Dems dominating a coalition organization there). We do have to build more grassroots mobilization to fight that in the future(and that also means getting our labor movement here to get off its ass a lot more than its used to doing).

3)We do have Big Oil domination of politics here...and we try to fight it. That hasn't been easy. And I never pretended, for the record, that Alaska politics was a corporate-free zone.

4)Yes, the moron got elected here, due in significant part to the fact that our nominee against her was Tony Knowles(a DLC type who, as governor, did all he could to make sure that Dems didn't do well in any other races during his two terms in office. Knowles also blew what should have been an easy victory against Lisa Murkowski for her daddy's old Senate seat in 2004.)we are still trying to rebuild the party after what Knowles did to it. But there's always some hope for the future.

All in all, I've responded to what you intended as a baiting post with far better humor than you responded to any of my posts, none of which were intended to bait you.

[Divernan]

382. Classy & thoughtful reply to the North Carolina snarkster.

You gave a very concise and accurate snapshot of Alaskan politics.

I spent a week in Juneau visiting a friend who worked at KTOO - a uniquely beautiful part of the world. Specially loved kayaking on the Lynn Canal. I was there in the summer, so missed the Eaglecrest Slush Cup, but saw great video of my friend competing in it.
Alert | Add to my Journal

[yardwork]

394. Snarkster? The poster's comments about NC were highly uninformed and the responses have been polite.

[Tunkamerica]

439. what was your post if not an uninformed bait?

[Divernan]

381. Delete, dupe.

[yardwork]

393. You really don't know anything about North Carolina, do you?

Tobacco and textiles are both long gone.

I don't know who you're talking about with this "John Hunt." We had a very good Democratic governor named Jim Hunt. "The one DINO we had last time" - don't know what you're talking about, but if you're talking about Mike Easely keep walking.

"It's not worth trying to carry your state if it means trafficking with anti-union business types."

What???!! Ok, let's just give up trying to carry any state that "trafficks with anti-union business types." That would be about, um, 50 states.

[No Elephants]

427. People forget that both Edwards and Kerry were in the Senate New Democrats club.

[Art_from_Ark]

339. North Carolina textile companies

This is in the Burlington area alone.
Perhaps on one of your many travels through the state, you could stop by in Burlington and check them out.

http://www.powerprofiles.com/North+Carolina/Burlington/22/

[Tunkamerica]

Compared to the NC of even 20 years ago

the state of textiles is pathetic. Furniture is dying too, slightly slower, but dying. Not to mention the fact that a good number of those 60 or so companies report less than $100,000 total sales a year. And burlington used to be a nationwide, if not worldwide, hub.

[olegramps]

405. These industries have all been the victims of out-sourcing as of all American industry.

When corporate American bought and paid for the congress, they were able to rescind all tariffs that protected American workers and enact Trade Agreements and the New Global Economy crap. Global only means the ability to exploit desperate starving workers not only locally but universally. The huge trade imbalance could be easily corrected by slapping tariffs on products that have been out-sourced at the expense of the American worker to line the pockets of the international robber barons.

[Art_from_Ark]

425. Thank you for your explanation

I remember back in the '60s, Burlington Industries was a sponsor of one of the Sunday political discussion programs, and my grandfather had stock in the company. In fact, my first stamp "album" was an old Burlington annual report that he gave me (I would tear stamps with postmarks off envelopes and paste them into the annual report). So I was reading about Burlington textiles as I filled out my stamp album. LOL. But it's pretty sad to hear the NC textile industry has become a former shell of itself.

[Tunkamerica]

375. ..

i think my mouse double clicks by itself.

[yardwork]

395. There's just so much misinformation in this thread your mouse wants to double the corrections.

I'm making a mental note to be even more careful in the future when I'm talking about other states so as to avoid looking foolish and uninformed.

[AlbertCat]

279. Kowtowing to the textile bosses

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

:rofl:


Like NC makes textiles anymore!



Hey... if they had chosen Winston-Salem, would you accuse them of kowtowing to Big Tobacco?

[Ken Burch]

284. Well, the economy NC does have is basically right-wing and anti-worker

The Bank of America aspect ensures that. And the software types that are there are there because it's a good place to screw the workers.

[yardwork]

396. And this is different from most other states in what way?

[Wait Wut]

210. I think their support would be a broader statement.

It would send a strong message to our Democrats in NC and hopefully give them the courage and fire to fight for union rights in their state. Instead, they could see the unions as petty and not willing to support non-union workers rights.

I live in Arizona, another right-to-die-broke state. If the unions want to boycott Arizona, I'd be pissed. I've been pro-union before I new what it meant, thanks to my father (who was NOT a union member). I want to see them give these states a reason to shake in their boots. Staying home won't do that.

[Ken Burch]

222. And making deals with the devil will?

Enriching non-union businesses will?

What you're advocating never worked in South Africa.

[Wait Wut]

231. This isn't South Africa.

Coming from Chicago to Arizona has taught me a more humble appreciation of unions. I never had to join a union when I lived in Chicago, even though the offer was made several times. Do you know why? Because non-union employers were fighting with unions for quality employees. I made more than the average union graphic artist, had better benefits and more vacation time. I was treated extremely well. In Arizona, there is no such thing as a "good employee". It's a "cheap employee". You can be the best of the best here and be fired because some kid will work for $1 less an hour. Arizona is terrified of unions. If they were to come here en masse and make themselves conspicuous, it would drive the right nuts and give the rest of us the courage to fight. We can't afford to fight. We'll lose our jobs. Our jobs that pay crap compared to our neighbors.

I'm not going to go out of my to support the unions if they won't do the same for the rest of us.

[Ken Burch]

234. I was actually talking about North Carolina when I made the South Africa comparison

And, if you were Latino, you probably WOULD think Arizona has turned into South Africa. From what I can see(and I'd love to be wrong)your state's going to be run by Brewer and Arpaio types from here on in. Your state Democratic party isn't even fighting those two.

I admire the humane resistance culture in Arizona...but do you really think they'll create a pro-human decency culture in your state?

[JDPriestly]

115. The location has been changed late in the game before.

It can and should be changed.

Who in the world chose North Carolina? It is an insult to Democrats across the nation -- especially those of us in states in which we have worked for labor laws that respect the working people.

[awoke_in_2003]

97. we also know how strongly...

the president and his buddy Arne support teachers unions :sarcasm: just in case

[Ken Burch]

133. Why should we trust you when you have a picture in all of your posts

of the most anti-union(and, therefore, automatically the most right-wing)member of the Obama cabinet. You can't bash teachers and be progressive on anything. Teachers were never the problem and nothing good at all has come of mass firings and the traumatization of the nation's education professionals.

[proud2BlibKansan]

+1

[yardwork]

185. +2

[jwirr]

186. He has a US flag now - who did he have before - Arne?

[Ken Burch]

193. Arne's still there in his posts on my screen.

never did understand why Stubbs thinks that the whole problem with our educational system is that it isn't easy enough to fire teachers(which is a ridiculous thing for him to think anyway, since teachers can always be fired for cause anywhere).

[madrchsod]

240. +2

[sulphurdunn]

135. C'mon!

That's analogous to someone who promised to watch your back putting a knife in it and then giving your a couple of aspirin for the pain.

[caseymoz]

244. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but the Dems promised much more.

And when they had 60 votes in the Senate for a short time, and a majority in the House, they didn't follow through for all workers. And why did they have to compromise with Repubs on that one?

[jtuck004]

19. So even if they put you in the back of the bus, you've still got to pay the money and ride?

Don't think so.

[Doctor_J]

21. And thank them for giving you that seat in the back

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Holding the convention in NC is not "putting labor in the back of the bus"

NC is one of the largest swing states which President Obama needs to win in order to be reelected. Unions should use the convention as an opportunity to reach out to NC workers rather than snubbing them.

[jtuck004]

53. Apparently these unions don't share that opinion. /nt

[Lasher]

54. And unions are a large bloc of voters which Obama needs to win in order to be reelected.

How ironic, neoDemocrats like Obama are forcing union members to become swing voters. And as I have seen claimed here many times, you have to court those swing voters if you're going to win.

[merbex]

64. Bingo n/t

[jeff47]

75. Clearly, you've not been to NC.

"Right to work" laws in NC are ridiculously strong. Unionization is virtually impossible there.

"Reaching out" isn't going to unionize more workers there. The workers would like unions. But the laws are written to leave unions virtually powerless.

[Divernan]

78. You trying to pick a fight? Posting boots-on-the-ground facts?

The anti-union crowd don't need no stinkin' facts! Just wonder how many of the "the union should shut up and pony up millions for the convention" crowd work for minimum wage with no bennies and no job security. What about their families?

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. NC workers keep electing politicians who don't change "Right to work" laws

You have to convince the workers to elect politicians who will change the "Right to work" laws. Boycotting the state won't help.

[jeff47]

134. How would not boycotting the state help?

Do you think North Carolina residents are so stupid that they don't know what unions are?

Republicans win in North Carolina by thumping the bible harder than the Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

147. The only way to do that is to be militantly pro-union

Having Obama do fundraising breakfasts with New South bazillionaires can't acheive that. This is just about kowtowing to the slightly-less-nasty wing of the Dixie power structure. And nothing progressive can ever come from that. There's no such thing as a humane, progressive textile mill owner.

[Ken Burch]

271. The Dems don't nominate candidates who challenge those laws

And they don't gain any votes by nominating anti-labor candidates.

[primavera]

326. Kind of like we're supposed to keep electing presidents...

... who don't change right-to-work and other horrible laws?

[JDPriestly]

120. Barack Obama is not going to win swing states by offending labor.

That is a sure route to failure.

[Ken Burch]

138. We already know he can't carry NC again

And it can't be worth re-electing him if he thinks he has to appeal to rich Southern white people(the only ones Obama could care about in insisting on holding the convention in an antiworker) to win. You can't do good after compromising with evil.

And as to convention arrangements:

1)Will the party insist that all convention contracts go to companies with a union workforce?

2)Will the party get serious about backing the Rainbow labor movement in Dixie, instead of lowering itself to photo ops with non-union "New South" types"?

If not, no meaningful "reaching out" can possibly happen.

The only reason to go to NC would be to challenge the power structure...but they're going to do what you want and cozy up to it instead.

[kimsarah]

333. The Big O

won here by only 14,000 votes in '08. Considering all who he's been successfully alienating, he'll be fortunate to lose this state by that much in '12. Swing this.

[Cronus Protagonist]

202. Yeh. and there's a pony on its way, just shut up and be quiet

:sarcasm:

[Divernan]

219. The pony's come and gone, but it left us a steaming pile

[jtuck004]

303. ok. i'll just go polish my saddle.

;)

[sabrina 1]

95. Boycotts are the only successful tool people have. Apparently

votes don't get them a voice, we have learned that over the past few years. To say they 'represent voters' is almost funny at this point. When have they listened to voters, on what Progressive Issues have they responded to us? Other than to call our ideas 'fucking retarded'. Sorry, but a lot of faith and trust has been lost over the past few years in just voting. Good for the Unions for continuing their fight for the people. Politicians work for Big Business, we need someone fighting for the people.

Btw, since when did Democrats have this dismissive attitude towards Unions? They certainly have been representing OUR interests over the past few years, see Wisc eg, far more than those we elected.

[awoke_in_2003]

102. Ever since the DLC

rolled into DC. Even Clinton just paid lip service to unions. The party has been shitting on them for 20 years, and now they wonder why unions would be upset.

[No Elephants]

409. Clinton did a lot worse than limiting himself to lip service. NAFTA

[jwirr]

198. Unions have helped create almost if not all of the safety net along

with protecting workers rights. President Obama needs to understand that he has been alienating his base from the start - even with his appointees. He is going to lose this election single handed if he does not wake up soon.

[sabrina 1]

227. I agree with everything you said! n/t

[JDPriestly]

111. 22 states have right-to-work laws.

North Carolina is among them. Democrats should not hold their convention in any of the following states:

Alabama
Arizona †
Arkansas †
Florida †
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi †
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma †
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

The Democratic Party foremost represents the interests of the middle class and working people. That means we are the party that supports the rights of workers and unions. We should not spend our money in a state that has a right-to-work law that is inherently hostile to working people.

[DonCoquixote]

299. so no southern states eh?

even in New Orleans could have used it?

[Ken Burch]

314. They wouldn't have had it there no matter what.

This party never holds conventions anywhere near large groups of poor people.

[JDPriestly]

354. No southern states, not if they hold on to their right-to-work laws.

A lot of pro-union states could use the revenue that a national convention brings -- the hotel workers, the restaurant personnel, the taxi-drivers, everybody who works in the airport -- in pro-union states deserves the opportunity to work for Democrats attending a Democratic National Convention.

No Southern states. No non-union hotels.

[DonCoquixote]

358. I say this as one

That helped put Florida in the BLUE column last time,
It's one thing to hate anti union policies, but some of us down here are getting really frustrated with being abandoned down here, even as both left and right call us scum.

[JDPriestly]

361. RIght-to-work states draw jobs and business from

pro-labor states. It isn't a personal matter.

But we in California have more worker-friendly laws than you do in North Carolina. So why should we spend our money in your state. Your state takes jobs away from worker-friendly states.

Perhaps if you look at the situation from that viewpoint, you will understand why I think we should have 0 tolerance for holding a Democratic Convention in a right-to-work state.

[No Elephants]

376. Can you point out who called pro-union Democrats who are stuck living in right to work states scum?

[DonCoquixote]

359. and do you think we southern dems like our laws?

But of course, the amount of help we get from our party is something akin to "we hate you because you are not new York or California", even though NC and Florida went blue last time!

[JDPriestly]

360. What are you doing to change those laws?

North Carolina and other right-to-work states draw jobs from union-friendly states. The right-to-work states need to change. The union-friendly states are doing the right thing by workers, but lose industry, jobs and revenue to union-bashing states.

It's a shame, but you cannot expect Democrats in states that are doing the right thing by workers to want to hold conventions in your state. It isn't personal. It has nothing to do with you as a person. It's the laws of your state. Work to change them..

[bvar22]

401. Here in Arkansas,

Pro-UNION/Pro-Healthcare forces ran a popular Pro-LABOR Democrat, Lt Gov Bill Halter, against virulently Anti-UNION/Anti-Healthcare DLC Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Primary 2010.

The White House got so mad at us for speaking up that they threw the whole weight of the White House, DNC, DSCC behind Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln,
and even sent The Old Dog back down to Arkansas to rescue Lincoln's failing campaign.

The Democrat Party leadership doesn't like it when Working Class People SPEAK UP.
No, they don't like that at all,
and they WILL use funds from your donations to fight AGAINST the Economic Interests of the Working Class.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JDPriestly]

420. Yes. We should only support candidates who support unions.

I agree with you.

[DonCoquixote]

415. what are we doing

Gee, how about registering enough Democrats despite corrupt cops, corrupt pols and yahoos, enough to get Florida and actually WIN THE WHITE HOUSE! We are outgunned and underfed, but we still pull victories. Sorry to say, but in California you do not risk getting beat up/arrested/harassed/lack of jobs for being a liberal, here, we DO! But we still get and, register voters, and in 2008, defied the odds to where people were going "what, Florida went blue?" But no, it's not personal if people blandly say "We have no hope of winning there" because frankly, some people do not want to try and put in the hard work down south it takes to change hearts. Howard Dean did, and it worked. I will be the first to admit that our own Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, Dean's successor, is no Howard Dean, but she has been out trying to change those very laws you slam us for, the same laws we Florida democrats have been trying to overturn for years!

"work to change them" indeed, and while we have been working to do JUST that, people sigh, says "it's a shame" and then work to write off the states like NC and Florida that actually put in the work to put more blue on the electoral map!

Oh, and BTW, if you get to slam southern states, does this mean I get to hate California because it produced Ronald reagan? He was a union man too, you know, the only head of a union to ever become Prez. Don't worry, I won't, because I know there are REAL liberal in California; it's just a shame they also have a lot of the people for whom being liberal is just a means of being snooty. Don;t worry, in a real revolution, the people who will win are those who reached out to others, not the people who hid behind ivory towers.

[Ken Burch]

372. Fine, the national party should help more

But it should ONLY help those Dems who are running on a clear pro-labor platform. Not the types Wasserman-Schultz wants to impose.

[SugarShack]

353. Florida does have some unionized hotels, but the state party goes non union at Disney!

Unions have been pissed off for years in FLA! Maybe this will put a stop to it?

[Ken Burch]

373. "The state party goes non union at Disney!"?

So your state party is LITERALLY a Mickey Mouse operation?

:wow:

[proud2BlibKansan]

158. That's not why they are boycotting

[No Elephants]

170. Which cause?

[Xicano]

177. "Cause" What cause?

Don't mean to be blunt, but, frankly I really haven't seen any cause except corporate and rich people's causes with maybe a diminishing few scraps thrown to a few of us.

I think the unions are doing the right thing. Our leaders need to get the point. If you turn your back on us, we'll turn our backs on you. They have to learn we will not be ignored or lied to or accept broken promises.

[rpannier]

196. So you're opposed to all boycotts?

If you think boycotting a state doesn't help causes do you feel that way about companies and countries?

[Maraya1969]

241. That is a good point. Even if they are a low union state they could still use

the money brought in from a democratic convention.

[aquart]

242. If they want the convention, they can unionize.

What does it help to tell them there are no consequences to stiffing workers?

[Ken Burch]

270. Neither does defending Arne Duncan

Arne is the enemy of every working person in the country. It only helps the rich to blame our educational problems on teachers.

[Bluesbreaker]

363. Yes it does.

Either stand up to Obama's anti-union agenda or become irrelevant.

[bvar22]

24. As far as I'm concerned,

the words "Anti-Union" and "Democratic Party" don't belong in the same sentence.

Also,
one can NOT be FOR "Free Trade", and Pro-LABOR at the same time.

I have NO trouble determining where I stand,
and the Democratic Party NEEDS to make it CLEAR where the Party Stands,
or say goodbye to support from LABOR.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. American labor is going to need to become competitive on the global market or

there will be no more American labor. The world is shrinking, whether we like it or not.

[Duke Newcombe]

30. "Become competitive" = accept Third World wage scale and work conditions

Now where have I heard that dog whistle before....?

[bvar22]

45. Nailed It!!!

:patriot:


"By their WORKS you will know them."



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jtuck004]

65. Or learn how to gain assets and use them to their advantage.

There is not near enough emphasis on cooperative or employee-owned business and marketing local manufacturing and agriculture.

It's not gonna fix the damage from 40 years of attack by capitalists quickly, but it is a way for some to pool their resources and eventually quit asking "the man" for permission for a job.

I actually think union members ought to start exploring how they might use their resources to do this, because I think the global marketplace saps any power they would have in the adversarial relationship that drives their existence.

[fujiyama]

145. The good thing about employee ownership

is by giving your employees a stake in the company, it builds a greater loyalty and commitment. Employee morale likely increases and they feel like they have a vested interest in the company.

[jtuck004]

167. Agreed. The problem right now is that there is no incentive for business to "give"

anything. I think they believe they have both parties talking about the same thing, reducing expenses.

And expenses are any spending on people.

I think we have to move beyond anyone "giving" anyone anything and take it. Pool money, teach each other accounting and business, teach workers how they contribute to the company. Help them start other business.

My go to example for this is Springfield Remanufacturing. They were an International Harvester division, but when it was closed and all the employees laid off a number of them got together and bought the assets and now compete in the marketplace of building diesel engines.

Two of the unique things about manufacturing is 1)It is a wealth-building activity, as opposed to service business where only a small minority usually profit, and 2)Manufacturing is three times more likely to create spin-off business that employee-owners can run and spread the business model.

From my studies and observations over the years, one of the best things about this is that worker\owners can make better decisions about how to compete against inefficient corps run by a small group of people enriching themselves. An employee\owned bus might be more effective in international competition because they can bring the message to their neighbors most effectively. Cost will always make a difference, but it isn't everything. And if costs need to be looked at, they can be adjusted across the corporation, not just out of worker's pockets.

I know it won't be easy, but neither is the downward slide we are going into.

[AlbertCat]

288. they have a vested interest in the company.

Hell, these days even the CEO's don't have a vested interest in the company.... just golden parachutes regardless of their performance.

[No Elephants]

172. Celebrity chefs have been leading the way on locally grown food for years.

So, good on them.

[Ken Burch]

224. That's a good idea.

And the only kind of business tax breaks I could be support would be tax breaks for worker-owned and worker-managed businesses. Workers in that situation should be rewarded for doing what the rich refuse to do--that is, doing the right thing.

[rayofreason]

230. If you create your own business....

...you don't need to ask anyone for a job.

The problem comes when you create enough business that you create a second job. Someone has to come to you to ask permission for a job. You "the man".

[jtuck004]

257. Certainly there is an element of that, although at SRC I think it is more like presenting yourself

to the owners of a business to see if you can bring what will enrich all of you, as opposed to being scanned by the agents of owners, owners who are going to reap much of the profit of everyone's labor, and throw you away when they are through with you.

From Wiki -
"...(SRC) was established in 1983 when 13 employees of International Harvester purchased a part of that company that rebuilt big-vehicle engines,<2> with $100,000 of their own money and $8.9 million in loans. By 1988, SRC's debt to equity ratio was down to 1.8 to 1, and the business had a value of $43 million. The stock price, $0.10 in 1983, had increased to $13 a share.<3>

Since 1983, SRC has founded and invested in more than 35 separate companies that do everything from consulting to packaging to building high-performance engines. SRC has sales of over $400 million per year, with more than 1,200 employees.<1>.

SRC is known as being an employee-owned company and the culture of ownership permeates the entire organization from the CEO to the shop floor. A key part of this is business education that is regularly promoted throughout the company to help everyone in the company understand the financials, which are published in lunchrooms and other visible locations throughout the plants. This culture has made the company very successful in their business as everyone in the company is involved in improving the quality of their workplace and the value of the company..."

A quick Googling of their name shows they are even hiring this year, and I think one of their spin-offs is as well.

The more I see people with no power and no assets being treated badly the more I think they resemble the workers from International Harvester standing there after they were thrown on the street (figuratively). This business model really changed things for those folks, and it is certainly worth consideration, especially as we figure out what the economy is going to be going forward.

[rayofreason]

260. I agree that there are great advantages....

...in employee-owned business. The issue arises when you need to hire someone who is not a owner. Decisions may be made that will negatively impact others, but which the business owner believes are the best choices. There is no permanent resolution to this tension, just an ongoing social conversation.

[jtuck004]

265. That's true. Thanks. /nt

[Enthusiast]

67. Labor party?

I'm ready.

[Divernan]

93. What's next? Obama campaigns on pledge to lower minimum wage?

[TBF]

123. I'm surprised he hasn't done so already, but I'm sure it's coming. nt

[kath]

319. yeppers, won't be long now...

[Kingofalldems]

213. +1

[theHandpuppet]

296. Yeppers -- we've all been down that road before

And what a load of crap it is.

[Sherman A1]

58. American Labor is competitive

and exceptionally productive. We simply think we should be properly paid for what we produce.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Divernan]

94. We need a parseltongue translator.

[sulphurdunn]

116. "Resistance is futile.

You will be assimilated." Is that your message?

[JDPriestly]

121. The average wage in China in 2010 was 75cents per hour.

Do you want to compete with that wage?

The first thing we need to do is to curtail our trade agreements and rebuild our industrial base.

[yardwork]

188. Your're just being unrealistic!!! Squawk!! The world is flat! Squawk!! Can't afford it!!!111

[amborin]

159. that's a standard right wing talking point to justify the race to the bottom and union-bashing

[Ken Burch]

171. Democrats don't have to support what corporate power wants for the world

And our wages and conditions are bad enough. Only the rich should have to make sacrifices from here on in.

"Globalization" can't be an honorable thing for the Democratic Party to work for.

There has got to be some way to bring the world together WITHOUT forcing the global working-class Rainbow majority to stay in the "race to the bottom".

[rayofreason]

258. "global working-class Rainbow majority".....?????

What are you smoking (and can I have some)?

I doubt that you have the faintest clue about the life of the bulk of people in India or China (where I sit typing this), or the trajectories of those societies. Here in China in the past 20 years hundreds of millions have been lifted out of the abject poverty that has been the lot of most of humanity for most of history. Now the remaining 650 millions are waiting for their shot to make $10/day and be prosperous. The same thing in India where every time I go I see more and much more wealth, infrastructure, and development, and where I have also seen scenes like two women washing an emaciated baby in a filthy ditch, while nearby other women made cow-dung patties and stacked them to dry for use as cooking fuel, as women have done for thousands of years.

Only in a fantasy land of a westerner with no understanding of historical or current reality does the ongoing industrialization of India and China equate to a "race to the bottom." You wrote Only the rich should have to make sacrifices from here on in. Hoist by your own petard it would seem, given that YOU ARE THE RICH.

The western industrial worker cannot continue to demand wages 10-30 times that of a Chinese or Indian and expect to survive by producing comparable products under comparable conditions. Western industry can only survive by superior productivity and other competitive advantages such as local needs. Don't want to be outsourced? Be a plumber!!! Meanwhile the low prices provided by Chinese and Indian industry means that the ordinary standard of living in the US is at a level that past peoples (and many current) would find magical. What fraction of people below the poverty line in the US do you think own a cell phone, a TV, or a DVD player?

From http://www.nccp.org/faq.html
"Some people question whether a family that has air conditioning or a DVD player should be considered poor. But in a wealthy nation such as the US, cars, computers, TVs, and other technologies are considered by most to be a normal part of mainstream American life rather than luxuries. Most workers need a car to get to work. TVs and other forms of entertainment link people to mainstream culture. And having a computer with access to the internet is crucial for children to keep up with their peers in school."

True enough, poor is a relative thing. And there is real hardship in the US - by our standards. But if your standard is the countryside in Sichuan or Andrah Pradesh, if you really stand with the "global working-class Rainbow majority", our US poor are rich and Only the rich should have to make sacrifices from here on in.

So where does that leave us? There was a time when most people in the US were farmers. Now <1% of the population produce a cornucopia. Was that a "race to the bottom?" Tractors are cheaper than people. A similar transformation is occurring and those who want to cling to a real or imagined past are doomed. The challenge is to manage that transformation so that young people coming into the workforce are best prepared to adjust, have multiple careers, and find ways to create economic value in the US in forms that are not so easily shipped abroad. Not because of political reasons (Is it moral to use politics to protect the job of one American at the expense of the jobs of 20 Chinese and cause other Americans to pay higher prices for products as a result?), but because it makes good economic sense.

Robert Heinlein has a quote worth repeating:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

[Ken Burch]

274. Are you a bot from the World Bank or something?

How could you back the low-wage thing and still call yourself a Democrat?

The best thing The West could do to wipe out poverty in the rest of the world is to stop demanding that developing countries use most of their arable land to produce export crops rather than to feed their own population. It's immoral to say that we of the West have a greater claim to the lands of the developing world than do the people who actually live there.

Your whole post is nothing but David Rockefeller-style economic royalism.

[rayofreason]

357. I don't work for the World Bank...

...and I suspect that they would find many of my ideas unpalatable.

What I object to is ignorance, and policies and politics built on that ignorance. And I find an amazing amount of ignorance about the history, current conditions, and trajectory of many other countries (China and India in particular) among Americans of all stripes, a fault of our education system that has not kept up with the demand of a more global understanding. After all, how many Americans speak more than one language, particularly when it is so easy to travel speaking only English?

How can anyone call themselves an educated progressive without recognizing that the escape from misery and poverty among the vast bulk of the population in the developed countries has been the hallmark of the past century and that the escape from misery and poverty for the rest of humanity will be the defining theme and challenge of the next century?

http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Hunger-Premature-Death-1700-2100/dp/0521808782

The best thing The West could do to wipe out poverty in the rest of the world is to stop demanding that developing countries stop their efforts to grow their economies and wipe out poverty.

And your post, with its opaque reference to "David Rockefeller-style economic royalism" instead of any attempt to counter the points I made, confirms my suspicions that you really have no clue what is happening over here.

[Kingofalldems]

214. That sounds like something from the republican

book of talking points.

[NICO9000]

225. You're joking, right?

We already have extremely high productivity for shit wages. Everybody's already stressed enough from their crappy (or no) jobs and you think it's OK to come spouting the "gotta compete in the global market" horseshit. Let me translate that for ya, Stubbs:

RACE TO THE BOTTOM, BUDDY!


:mad:

And fuck Arne too!

[madrchsod]

256. give me a fucking break.

give us the tools and we can compete with anyone else in the world. we used to have the tools but they were all sold off because we wanted to make a decent living.

i guess me and millions like me were just lazy union bums who were responsible for the downfall of america. wait a minute where did i hear something like what you wrote..ya i think it was during the 80`s...

[Ken Burch]

286. Workers have given up ENOUGH already.

The problem hasn't ever been that American workers had it too easy. Even to think such a thing means you have an essentially right-wing mindset.

[on point]

302. American labor IS competitive!!! It is the mgmt which is vastly overpaid and non-competitive!!!

CEO's in other OECD countries generally make 500K to 1 million dollars. They do not make 30x times that like the mgmt does in this country.

Our workers are VERY competitive. it is the mgmt of our corps who are incompetent and over paid!!

[Roy Rolling]

51. More words

We should also banish from our vocabulary the term "right-to-work state". In every state there is the right to work, where is someone prevented from working? But these states use the term "right-to-work" to mean anti-union, anti-organized labor. It is a propaganda term created by anti-union activists who are too cowardly to identify themselves as favoring the exploitation of less-financially sophisticated employees like rank and file employees. So they mask their job-killing agenda with misleading language.

The term "right-to-work" is code for "right to work for less money, fewer benefits and an inequitable concentration of wealth favoring management".

[geardaddy]

100. +1000

Right on, brother.

[awoke_in_2003]

106. it also means...

right to be fired for no reason whatsoever.

[No Elephants]

176. You're correct. New lingo: anti-union states and fair wage states.

[Enthusiast]

66. You are exactly correct.

Why is Obama PUSHING for new trade deals when they have been the death of the middle class and manufacturing in this nation? I never would have cast a vote for Obama if I knew he wanted more NAFTAs.

[No Elephants]

179. How could you possibly have known unless you were a mind reader?

[Ken Burch]

119. No one who's actually against unions agrees with us on anything that matters

You have to be pro-labor to be progressive.

And millions of people who aren't union members want to be, Freddie. You can't assume that "non-union" equals anti-union.

Your argument is the same one that was used to keep this party from doing a damn thing about Jim Crow for decades. There's no difference between opposing civil rights and opposing the right of workers to organize. Workers can never win in this system as disconnected individuals.

[Lorien]

124. Really? What unions do billionaires belong to? nt

[24601]

307. Screen Actors Guild? n/t

[Ken Burch]

336. Most SAG members are unemployed.

There's actually only a handful that make the big bucks.

[Ken Burch]

143. It only represents those non-union people who WANT to be union

It doesn't get votes from any significant group of workers who actually oppose the labor movement. Those types are all right-wing crazies.

[ljm2002]

146. Union members are voters...

...and historically, unions have been instrumental in getting out the vote for the Democratic Party.

This is bad for the Democratic Party, very bad.

The party leaders of course brought it on themselves. They continue to believe they have a captive audience with the unions and the "professional left" and all. Looks like that is starting to crack though.

[Vincardog]

168. Can we agree that the party TRADITIONALLY represented the interests of the Working people?

[yardwork]

189. No! We're rewriting history. And stop saying that!

[Vincardog]

391. I don't want to waste my time on trolls

[yardwork]

400. I guess I should have used the sarcasm smiley.

[tavalon]

246. Are you looking at the same party I am?

I've been thoroughly disabused of the notion that this party represents voters, unless by voters, you mean corporations.

[LanternWaste]

443. It also represent a platform.

It also represent a platform of ideals and convictions I believe.

[No Elephants]

428. +1 Trumka has been asking that same question, though not in those exact words.

[Purveyor]

2. Well Nov. 2012 is a long ways off but it is not looking good. Nope, not at all! eom

[pam4water]

3. K&R

[truthisfreedom]

4. So what did we learn from this, folks?

I feel like we're that guy who shot himself in the penis with his girlfriend's gun.

[tblue]

237. We gave ourselves a penisectomy.

I swear it's like the Dems are trying to lose. Pretty funny, your post.

[herreballs]

7. Sitting out isn't the solution

If you aren't engaging in the debate, then how do you expect things to change?

Sitting out the convention = kind of acting lack of 4 year old who doesn't get his way.

Just my 2 cents.

[Enrique]

9. more than one way to engage in the debate n/t

[zipplewrath]

11. This may say more about conventions in general

There isn't alot of subtantive work that goes on here. They may figure they can "sit out" in an environment where they can communicate remotely and even "fly in" whenever they want to attend something. Saves money on a skybox as well.

[Fuddnik]

47. Keep your two cents.

I can live on my union pension.

[jeff47]

77. I don't think you quite understand the situation

Nothing is decided at the convention. It's a big PR show. Unions bought seats, which really are just large donations. By boycotting they aren't leaving the political process, or refusing to participate in creating a platform. What they are doing is refusing to pay for the big PR show.

[sabrina 1]

105. Really? It seems to me that the Unions have been very engaged

in fighting for the people over the past few years. But where has the Dem Party been on issues that matter to those who elecgted them?

Maybe give that advice to the Leadership of the Dem Party who have been sitting out on the people since 2009, Jan to be precise while the Unions have been very much engaged.

The Party Leadership doesn't care about those who elected them, Unions do. Maybe the Unions can have their own convention where the people's, not Corporate, issues are a top priority.

Talk about childish. The leadership of this party needs to grow up and stop throwing temper tantrums every time the people who elected them tell the truth about how they feel they have been doing their job.

They are supposed to be working for US, remember?

[awoke_in_2003]

108. you can't engage in debate...

with someone who is not even listening to you. Welcome to DU :hi:

[UnrepentantLiberal]

113. Because Obama is a Republican. He doesn't care what unions have to say.

Sitting out his reelection is the exact right policy.

[Ken Burch]

164. No good ever comes of going to a convention and losing on your issues

Nothing is ever built of that.

[No Elephants]

184. What part of "no union hotels" did you miss? It's like asking

Democrats to donate to the RNC.


Do you actually believe that anything of significance get done at the national convention?

They will get more of a say in the Democratic Party by boycotting the Convention, along with their money, than they ever will by showing up.

[Bluebear]

355. 'kind of acting lack of 4 year old who doesn't get his way' - Shove your two cents up your rear end.

Thank you.

[sarcasmo]

10. Good, all they understand is money, hold some back and see if they wake up.

[OHdem10]

14. Unfortunately, the Right Wingers are trying to make this a Right

to Work Country with all their Union Busting Tactics
in different states.

This is the worst time for the Party to get crosswise
with the Unions.

Why did we choose NC??? I sure hope we carry it in the
election or this would have been a very bad decision.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. NC was chosen because it is one of the largest swing states Obama must carry to be reelected

[Doremus]

125. More than one swing state, must-win, that aren't right to work.

Ohio being one, Pennsylvania another, and probably more.

Lots of loyal union members here in the rust belt who would LOVE to have the work.

But then the Third Way admin. would actually be supporting its base. Can't have that, as we see.

[Doctor_J]

16. The national party is alienating economic liberals, unions,

anti-torture/anti-war folks, gays...all while gathering no votes from the Repukes. How many constituencies can they refuse to represent, and still expect support at the polls?

[Enthusiast]

71. Environmentalists also.

Why would a party intentionally alienate their core constituency? Very suspicious.

[awoke_in_2003]

109. because their constituency is Wall Street. nt

[Doctor_J]

151. And teachers

very strange for a "dem"

[yardwork]

192. It's the audacity of hope.

[placton]

20. shit on the base, lose the benefits

of having one - same with me, I will be looking hard for real Dems to support

[onpatrol98]

25. Meh...maybe they want to be aggressive in the state...

2006
North Carolina Democrats scored impressive victories in the 2006 general elections, increasing their majorities in both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly and defeating incumbent Republican Congressman Charles Taylor. In addition, most candidates backed by Democrats in the non-partisan races for the North Carolina Supreme Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals were elected. These victories came despite controversies surrounding Jim Black, a Democrat and former Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives. The State Board of Elections ruled that Black's campaign illegally accepted corporate contributions and checks with the payee line left blank. He pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge, after denying charges through the November 2006 election. He won re-election by just seven votes in a heavily Democratic district, but resigned from office in 2007.<1><2>

2008
In 2008, the North Carolina Democratic Party once again earned major victories in state and federal elections. For the first time since 1976, the Democratic nominee carried North Carolina in the presidential election. Meanwhile, Kay Hagan was elected to the U.S. Senate over incumbent Elizabeth Dole, and Beverly Perdue was elected governor to succeed fellow Democrat Mike Easley.

2010
In 2010, however, Republicans swept North Carolina, taking control of both houses of the General Assembly for the first time since 1896, reelecting Richard Burr to a second term by double digits, and unseating incumbent Democratic Rep. Bob Etheridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Democratic_Party

------------------------------
There are many loyal democrats in North Carolina. The convention will bring money to the state and many local areas. I'm not in NC, but if I was, that sentiment of punishing citizens in the state wouldn't win me over. It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Agreed. They are acting like spoiled children who are not getting their way

[Duke Newcombe]

32. You should mention "ponies" as well.

That would make this comment complete.

[tsuki]

34. No more than the Democratic Party did when they turned their back

on Wisconsin saying the recalls interfered with the "Win the Future" slogan.

[whathehell]

56. Damn right...They need labor every bit as much as labor needs them. n/t

[Enthusiast]

74. That will encourage union members.

Not.

[sabrina 1]

114. Lol, that is funny when you remember how the

WH acted when they were not getting their own way. They WANTED Blue Dogs in the party rather than progressives and watching Rahm stomping his little feet and swearing at those they NEED to help them get reeelected, as a teacher, reminded me of a badly spoiled kid who was so used to getting his own way he simply could not tolerate anyone not giving him his pony. There, you see? Ponies for everyone!

Try not to mention childish behavior too often, it conjures up too many not so flattering images from the past number of years, but not of the Unions. :eyes:

[Divernan]

383. Love the part about Rahm stamping his little feet.

To paraphrase Kelsey Grammer's ex: Little hands, little feet, big disappointment! Maybe that is why Rahm overcompensates with one of the foulest mouths in the political world.

[jeff47]

81. And pissing on unions isn't going to win them over, either. (nt)

[IamK]

31. in Obama's mind, its another group that will vote for him so why bother....

[tsuki]

33. I pray there is no flip flopping on this. nt

[Lasher]

62. The union leadership will cave.

Union leadership won't pass on a chance to party bigtime on the rank and file membership's money. That's what it will come down to.

[Harmony Blue]

430. I disagree

Union leadership at least doesn't do a lot of fence sitting like this current administration.

[bvar22]

35. It is not JUST the selection of an Anti-Union city for the convention.

The Obama White House and the Democratic party Leadership has run up a long list that Pro-LABOR Democrats are pissed about,

from the Trash Canning of EFCA on Day One,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU

to "Free Trade" and the broken Promise on NAFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0&NR=1

to the Cadillac Tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM&feature=player_embedded

to the silence on the issues in Wisconsin,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o


to the insult to LABOR over the White House's support for virulently Anti-UNION Blanche Lincoln
in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010.


LABOR has a right to be pissed at the current Democratic Party Leadership.
The White House and Party leadership NEEDS man up, and show where they STAND,
or say good-bye to support from LABOR.

SOLIDARITY!!!



"By their WORKS you will know them."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[whathehell]

52. +1000....Labor has every right to be pissed as hell at this administration. n/t

[No Elephants]

194. You forget putting cuts to Medicare and OASDI on the table.

[stockholmer]

36. APNewsBreak: Some unions to skip 2012 convention

Source: AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a dozen trade unions plan to sit out the 2012 Democratic convention because of their anger over the site of the meeting in a right-to-work state and their frustration over Democrats' struggles to create jobs.

If unions don't participate, it would deprive the party of millions of dollars that would have been spent on sky boxes and other sponsorships that usually help underwrite the convention. The move could pose a larger problem for President Barack Obama next year if an increasingly dispirited base of labor activists becomes so discouraged that it doesn't get the rank-and-file to the polls in its usual strong numbers.

The unions - all part of the AFL-CIO's building and construction trades unit - told party officials this week they are gravely disappointed that labor was not consulted before Democrats settled on Charlotte, N.C., where there are no unionized hotels.

"We find it troubling that the party so closely associated with basic human rights would choose a state with the lowest unionization rate in the country due to regressive policies aimed at diluting the power of workers," Mark Ayers, president of the building trades unit, wrote in a letter to Democratic Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

snip

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATIC_CONVENTION_UNIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-12-13-58-54

[frylock]

37. shit just got real

[november3rd]

38. Amen, brother!

United we bargain, divided we starve.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

39. We Need to Be there... TO PROTEST

Kick and recommend if you're up for a road trip.

We got a year to organize and plan.

Who's in?

[No Elephants]

201. Nope. I'm not staying in a non union hotel either.

What is the point of the union reps staying away if we all show up to replace them? Point is, you don't want to favor an anti union state and anti union shops with your tourist dollars, room taxes, sales taxes, etc.. Hotels, restaurants, souvenir shops.

[Ken Burch]

266. Then the local unions should arrange for out-of-state union activists

to stay at their homes(with the guests bringing food or whatever their hosts might need).

[jeff47]

315. What local unions?

I think you underestimate just how bad the right-to-work laws in NC are.

[Ken Burch]

348. In that case...the local workers who WANT to be union.

n/t.

[jeff47]

349. You're still bringing money to the state

Even if you stay in someone's house, you're going to end up spending money there. If you somehow manage to bring all your supplies from out-of-state, you'd have to be a massive jackass to not share them with your host.

[Ken Burch]

351. Of course we'd share them with the hosts...that isn't the same thing

as staying in a non-union hotel. If you stay in the hotel, you've tainted yourself. Staying with the families and sharing the food with them is different.

[IamK]

40. Obama might throw the unions a bone right before the election...

but not yet.... He's not worried about their vote either....

[No Elephants]

203. Democrats have already lost the votes of many union members. Now, it seems they are losing the

support of the union leadership. And, if this boycott holds, donations, too.

Make no mistake. Unions are important to some of his big donors, too. Not the corporations, but, say, Hollywood is pro-union.

Every time there's a strike, you'll see big celebrities of all ages joining the pickets in solidarity.

[nobodyspecial]

41. Great idea

I'm sure the next GOP president will be nice to them.

[frylock]

42. because if the dems don't get their precious skybox money then bachmann wins, right?

[Duke Newcombe]

63. At this point, it's a distinction with damned little difference. n/t

[No Elephants]

205. Yeah, the more Democrats act like Republicans, the less the impact of booga booga

political terrorism.

I've had Romney for a Governor and I've had Deval Patrick for Governor and I've had Bush for President and Obama for President.

Besides, one step at a time. There is no guaranty yet that Obama will be the nominee.

[Hawkowl]

43. Oh, the Unions want a pony...

:sarcasm: You can only fuck over your base so many times before they return the favor.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Boycotting a large swing state is a pony that they should not get

[jeff47]

83. They are not boycotting the state.

They are refusing to fund a large PR stunt in that state.

[cstanleytech]

153. Sounds likea boycott me but *shrug* whatever.

I just dont want to hear them whine if it comes back to bite them on the ass down the road.

[jeff47]

316. Well, so far supporting the Democrats has bitten them in the ass.

So might as well try something else.

[No Elephants]

207. It's not a swing state for them. And they don't need any pony from Obama in

order to have the right to boycott a non union state.

They already have that right.

[left on green only]

99. Sounds To Me Like It's Payback Time

The amount of trouble it is going to take to move the location of the convention should be made to be nothing, compared to the world of hurt that the Democratic Party will be made to feel if they alienate their labor base. What needs to happen is that *all* labor unions need to serve notice that they will boycott the convention, in every role except that of picketing. If Obama needs to worry that he will lose the election unless he takes North Carolina, then that means that his message doesn't deserve to win in the first place. Perhaps a new candidate for the people would be more appropriate. I for one, am sick of his compromising with the right wing Nazis "In The Spirit of Democracy". It makes me hurl every time I remember all of the men and women who gave their lives during WWII so that we would never have to compromise with right wing fascism in our country.


Didn't someone mention Elizabeth Warren?

[cosmicone]

48. This is plain stupid.

It would be a great opportunity to highlight the differences between progressive states and right-to-work states in the media limelight.

Do the unions really want repukes to win? How does that help them?

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Good question. (nt)

[Sherman A1]

55. Kinda thinkin'

that the GOP won in 2008, by the way labor has been tossed aside. I thought I voted Democratic, but between The White House & My Senator Claire, it's kinda hard to tell the difference.

[jeff47]

84. Your comment doesn't make any sense.

So your plan is to go to the party and insult the host? "Boy, your state really, really sucks compared to this other state."

Yeah, that's gonna go over well.

"Do the unions really want repukes to win?"

No, they want better Democrats. You don't get better Democrats by playing along out of fears that the Republican will win.

You're also ignoring that there's more than one actor here. The Obama administration didn't have to piss on labor's issues for the last 2 years.

[cosmicone]

92. Highlighting differences and showing the good points is not

insulting the hosts. There is a big side show at the convention where union leaders could have talked about it with one of the zillion talking heads. It is a great opportunity in my book.

Furthermore, the convention is primarily about Obama. Dragging Obama down would drag ALL democrats down, pro-union or not.

[jeff47]

127. You are now making less sense.

The unions should drag the talking heads out to their dog and pony show so that they could co-opt an event that's all about Obama.

...

Um....what?

Do you actually think the people in North Carolina don't know what unions are?

"Dragging Obama down would drag ALL democrats down, pro-union or not."

And propping Obama up gets labor's issues pissed on for another 4 years.

Obama chose to abandon card-check. Obama also decided to fund his heath care reform bill by taxing union health plans. Obama also ignored or worked against Unions on many other issues. Obama didn't have to do any of that, but he did. As a result, unions aren't happy.

If unions withdraw their support over what Obama has done and not done, it's not the union's fault.

[dgibby]

91. They'll get a lot more air time to highlight the differences

by boycotting the convention. This should be very newsworthy.

[October]

129. With so many Dems acting like 'Repukes' - no one is paying attention to unions

It was a stupid choice -- NC. Thoughtless and a slap in the face to many.

[cstanleytech]

156. Tell it to Bev Perdue the democratic governor for the state.

I am sure she will agree with you.

[No Elephants]

216. LOL!

[SpartanDem]

49. Idiots are actling like babies

NC is a major swing state, you'd think you wouldn't have to explain to people so involved with politics why they would want hold a convention there

[Ken Burch]

264. It can't be worth carrying the state if you have to leave the right-to-work laws unchallenged

to do it(as all NC Dems do). You can't DO anything pro-worker if you leave the right-to-work law in place. Bo tiny gradualist changes can help.

And we know the NC Dem politicians will never fight for the workers there.

No state with the "New South" mindset is worth bothering with.

[Enthusiast]

57. K&R.............nt

[Divernan]

59. Earlier DU post points out Obama's ties to Pritzker family

alp227 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-04-11 02:15 PM
Original message
(DNC 2012) Obama’s Choice of Charlotte a Slap in Face to Organized Labor

In choosing Charlotte, North Carolina to host the 2012 Democratic National Convention, President Obama selected a city with

NO UNIONIZED HOTELS,

A NON-UNION CONVENTION CENTER,

LEAST UNION MEMBERSHIP OF THE FOUR OPTIONS.

Last October, UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm wrote a letter to the Democratic National Committee, stating that Charlotte’s non-union hotels made it an unacceptable choice. Candidate Obama pledged to join UNITE HERE’s picket line at Chicago’s Congress Hotel if elected President – a promise he made no attempt to fulfill – but as President has increasingly courted corporate interests while ignoring labor’s needs. While some attribute Obama’s decision to the importance of North Carolina and neighboring Virginia in the 2012 presidential race, another factor could also be at play. UNITE HERE has been waging the most aggressive union campaign ever against the Hyatt Hotel chain, owned by the Chicago-based Pritzker family. Penny Pritzker was the national finance chair of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. If Obama wanted to ensure ongoing Pritzker and corporate loyalty in 2012, choosing a city opposed by UNITE HERE and that only has non-union hotels sends a powerful message.

[yardwork]

191. Bank of America is based in Charlotte. So are a lot of other banks.

Just saying.

[eilen]

197. Penny Pritzker, the bitch who thought it would be fun

to throw the heat lamps on the picketers at the Chicago Hyatt in 100 degree weather.

[Divernan]

223. Penny Pritzker: National Finance chair for Obama's 2008 campaign

[BobbyBoring]

60. Damn Union Thugs!

Good on them.

They have to speak loud and clear. The few unions left are the last barricade for labor in the US.

[Autumn]

69. That's one hell of a strong statement.

Who needs labor? WE need labor. Someone needs to start listening.

[Divernan]

70. Obama/DNC hired non-union workers for his Chicago fundraiser/birthday bash

and held it in a non-union venue. I didn't see anything about this on DU at the time, but it was all over the anti-union blogs, who found it amusing as hell. All you pro-Obama, anti-union folks, don't insult our intelligence by spinning this to attack the blogs which reported this. Deal with the facts.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/unions-outraged-that-white-house-hired-non-union-workers-for-obamas-birthday-bash/

Somebody’s Having a Birthday Party and You’re Not Invited
That is, if you belong to a union. In case you live under a rock and haven’t heard, Barack Obama turns 50 today. And, the place to be tonight is the Aragon. The party starts at 7:00. But don’t bother to show up if you’re a union member. The White House hired a non-union crew for the event tonight.

A confidential and trusted union source contacted me today to report that the crews called in to work Obama’s birthday bash are non-union. Union members are OUTRAGED that Obama would turn his back on them.

Curiously, my source added that the day rate is actually higher for the non-union members to do the work. It’s not a money issue. What gives?

UPDATE: We contacted a number of unions: two IBEW locals, IATSE and Teamsters. The Business Rep at IBEW 1220 in Chicago (they do camera work) was the first to respond. There has been no requests for his local to do work there. He was unaware of the event and actually surprised at the location of the event.


Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)
(and)
Let Them Eat Cake! DNC Blows Off Unions For Obama’s 50th Birthday Bash!
Wednesday, August 3rd at 4:00PM EDT
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/08/03/let-the-eat-cake-dnc-blows-off-unions-for-obamas-50th-birthday-bash/
A day after President Obama held an “urgent” meeting with AFL-CIO bosses in the White House, the Democrat National Committee is hosting a huge birthday bash for Obama’s 50th birthday tonight in Chicago. The only problem is, DNC organizers apparently chose not to use union labor for the event.

While no one was in at Chicago’s IATSE local to confirm or deny whether IATSE members were ignored, an IBEW business representative seemed surprised when contacted over the telephone earlier.

IBEW Business Representative Jim Kelly stated that his IBEW local (which does camera work) was not contacted for the work. He also stated that the venue where the Obama Birthday Bash is taking place is a non union venue. A call into of UNITE-HERE’s Local 1 confirmed that the Aragon Ballroom is, in fact, a non-union location.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, tickets will range from “$50 a person to $35,800 per couple, which includes VIP seating at a “Birthday Concert” where celebs will be performing and a dinner with the president.”

[amborin]

161. speaks volumes; just so "in your face"

[MissDeeds]

72. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

73. I hate to see it, but it's time some strong stands were taken. The Dem leaders...

The Democratic leaders have lost sight of who they are supposed to be working for....the middle class worker, which includes in large part the union guy.

I agree that I've gotten fed up with unions these last few years, as I've watched them get greedier and greedier. Some of the unions have gone too far, expect too much, demand to much at a cost to the country. I've watched them strike for exceptional benefits like lifetime health insurance smack dab in the middle of a once-in-a-century recession with millions unemployed. Greedy, for sure.

But that doesn't mean I want them to disappear or their bargaining rights done away with. I support unions in principle, and the Dem. Party needs to step up and make it clear that they do, too.

I do find it odd that they object to the state where the convention will be held. I don't see that as that important. What difference does it make? They probably are holding it where they were made the best deal, don't you think?

What is a "right to work" state, anyway? I thought it meant workers are guaranteed some protections from being fired.

[Harmony Blue]

131. Living in the Right to Work state of Florida

I can safely say a right to work state ensures you can be fired for almost any reason. I am in 100% in agreement with the unions as I have never considered myself pro union, and like you supported unions due to principle. But I have shifted my "neutral" stance to pro union this last year given how hard the right wingers are trying to dismantle unions DURING a recession. They are trying to make their power play when the ordinary people are down, which is why Wisconsin is such an inspiration of the collective working in unison for the greater good.

[October]

165. Absolutely! People don't understand what that means.

I can't agree with you enough re WISCONSIN! They are so inspirational -- such fighters!

[Honeycombe8]

398. I looked up "right to work" and found what it means. I actually am on the fence about that.

I think it is every person's right not to be forced to join a union in order to get a job.

I say this because I come from a union town, where I saw the unions display their power and prevent others, through the use of guns, from crossing strike lines to work at the plants. That was Louisiana, a "right to work" state.

I see where other workers not belonging to the union lessens the power of the union, and makes strikes less meaningful. But I also see where a guy who wants a job, but doesn't want to have to pay part of his wages to a union, should be able to do that.

The unions have a dark history of browbeating its members, and those who don't want to be members. There is a long history of misuse of union dues, and involvement with mobsters (a la Jimmy Hoffa), all that corrupt wealth built from the wages of the ordinary guy. I think that the average worker should be protected from being forced to join a union, just to get a job.

But I also see where, when the unions are good, it's of benefit to everyone for everyone working at the company to have to belong to the union. All workers probably benefit in some way from the union contract, I think.

So, I'm on the fence about this one. It's probably good in some instances, and not good in others. I have never lived in a state that is not a right to work state, so I don't know. My observation has been...despite "right to work" laws, unions have a way of forcing other workers into joining the union, anyway. Think about it. I wouldn't want to go against what most of my co-workers are doing, and be the odd guy out.

[Harmony Blue]

You are not forced to join a union

It is always a choice, but the RW claim that you have no "choice', which is why "right to work" laws exist which are shameful.

[Harmony Blue]

441. You are not forced to join a union

It is always a choice, but the RW claim that you have no "choice', which is why "right to work" laws exist which are shameful.

[Marnie]

76. Sounds to me like a good time to unionize the Charlotte hotels.

While they are at it nurses unions, also too.
Hint to nurse's unions, there are lots of med techs who could use your help. Why stop with just nurses?
We make crappy wages and are treated like dirt, phlebotomists even more so.

[jeff47]

86. Not gonna happen in North Carolina

The "right to work" laws in North Carolina strip unions of virtually all power.

[Waiting For Everyman]

80. The unions are right.

Enough's enough.

[Harmony Blue]

142. I am inclined to agree

You have to make a stand at some point when it comes to core principles, or else you end up losing much more.

[senseandsensibility]

82. keep this kicked

All DUers need to see this.

[Ozymanithrax]

85. NC has been won by Democrats three times since 1964

So I do not see why Unions should spend money to help pay for the Convention. the Democratic Party should pay for them if they want them to come since in Right to Work NC unions have no right to work.

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. This isn't the first time that the Convention has been held is a right to work state

Why is it suddenly an issue?

[Ozymanithrax]

101. Because Republicans in Right to Work States have moved to crush unions...

and the workers in those unions and to spread the religion of right to work and Management superiority everywhere.

So instead of Democrats expecting Unions to spend their money so Democrats can have a Convention and enrich management and investors in states where workers are expected to set the fuck down and shut the fuck up Democrats should reconsider who supports them.

Hold their convention there if they feel they have a tactical advantage, but they should not expect Unions to pay for the privilege.

If they expect us to be there because we have nowhere else to go. Then it is time to find somewhere else to go.

[geardaddy]

103. The last DNC was held in Denver

BECAUSE it has union hotels.

[Robb]

141. False. Before the '08 convention, precisely 1 hotel in Denver was organized.

Edited to add: and they didn't have a contract until May of that year.

[Firebrand Gary]

89. Stupid LABOR UNIONS, I think the end goal would to get NC as a Union State.

We love beating the shit out of ourselves? I don't get it.

[dgibby]

98. I seriously doubt that anyone who would call labor unions

"stupid" would get anything. I'm guessing you like 40 work weeks, weekends off, paid vacations, minimum wage. If so, thank the unions.

[jeff47]

137. And not boycotting helps that goal because......? (nt)

[Ken Burch]

166. It can't help unions to honor the status quo in a non-union state

Every time we hold a convention in a particular state, we're saying "long live the status quo!" in that state. Like in Chicago in '68, when the party said "Long Live Daley! Fuck the youth! Fuck free speech! Fuck the poor!" by having the convention there and saying nothing when Daley had his thugs beat people in the streets.

[myrna minx]

96. I stand united with my union brothers and sisters. K&R n/t

[dgibby]

107. I've never been in a union (military),

but I stand with the unions because they've fought for things that have benefited all of us. In addition, members of my family are union members, and I know how hard they've struggled to improve working conditions for every working person in this country. If we lose the unions, we'll just be one big gianormous sweatshop, not a country.

[myrna minx]

132. I'm not union personally, but many of my loved ones are and I also grew up in a UAW town -

so I'm all for solidarity. I can't believe the excuses I'm reading here. Hey, why don't we have the 2012 Democratic T-Shirts, bumper stickers, signs, mailers and materials etc all made and printed in China so that perhaps the Chinese may one day see what a great economic model we are. :crazy: This is clearly a snub, and yet folks feel that the Dems are *entitled* to union cash.

[dgibby]

149. Wouldn't surprise me a bit of all the convention materials

are coming from China or some other off shore entity. Wouldn't that just be the icing on the cake?

I grew up in a railroad town. Town 12 miles up the road is a papermill town. Lots of union folks around here.

[myrna minx]

199. We Duers often shake our heads when the bagger types often vote against their own financial

best interests., Well the third wayers and blue dogs think we're fools and that we'll do the same. Why do the national Dems think they're entitled to union cash and boots on the ground if the Dems apparently no longer support labor? I don't even recognize my won party anymore.

[musicblind]

104. As a very liberal person living in very conservative Asheboro, NC

I am thrilled the convention will be held in our state. I hope it will open many eyes and hearts.

I agree with the people who say the Unions should not give up and should continue reaching out to make changes in NC. Not EVERYONE here agrees the state should be a Right To Work state.

[dgibby]

110. This is not as much about NC being hostile to unions as it

is about Obama and the New Dems being hostile to them. This is a huge "Come to Jesus meeting" for Obama, hosted by the unions. They've been trying to get his attention for quite awhile. Maybe he'll listen up now.

[Ken Burch]

122. Holding the convention there can't help the labor movement in NC

It can only strengthen the right-to-work forces. What you're seeing is the exact same reaction you'd have seen if the party had insisted on holding the 1964 national convention in Montgomery, Alabama.

[Red Mountain]

236. I agree

It should be held here because it's a teachable moment.

Compare and contrast........but for damn sure don't criticize.

Folks around here would rather suffer than listen to an outsider tell them they're stupid.

Tell them how it can be better.

Traditionally right wing voters rely on the services their leaders rail against.

They know deep down it's a problem.......and they'll be ours when they can voice it.

[KG]

112. solidarity.

[Ken Burch]

118. It's simple...there's NEVER a good reason to hold a convention in an anti-union state

The only honorable thing for Democrats to do in states like that is to work for the repeal of the right-to-work laws. Holding our convention there is the same thing as saying that it's ok for N.C. to be eternally anti-union. Only people who want such laws overturned are going to vote for us anyway.

We hurt workers and the poor by ever giving anti-union states plums like a convention.

And we're never gonna carry N.C. again anyway, so why even bother? It's just gonna keep voting Jesse Helms for the rest of eternity.

[Robb]

150. Sorry, but Democratic conventions help local unions.

History shows it: stronger unions post-convention. Ask the Boston Police Union about 2004, or ask Unite Here about Denver in 2008.

You call it a plum, I call it a half-nelson. :) And by the way, no one thought we'd carry CO in 2008, either.

[Ken Burch]

163. Boston wasn't in a right-to-work state

And Colorado was already much more pro-labor than the massively right-wing North Carolina-a state that showed us, for all time, what it was really about when it refused to ever vote Jesse Helms out of the Senate.

[Robb]

173. Hoffa Jr. didn't characterize Colorado that way.

But maybe you're right. Could be.

[Ken Burch]

221. Will the party be insisting that all convention related contracts go only to unionized businesses?

If not, nothing that can happen at that convention could be good for workers.

There's nothing to be gained from short-term alliances with "New South" type bazillionaires(the sort of people who, just below the surface, are just like the uncles in Lillian Hellman's "The Little Foxes").

[Robb]

272. How do you remember it happening in 2008?

I mean, please. Deny history to your own detriment: unions are strengthened when the Democratic National Convention comes to town. Labor knows this. Organizers know this. It's a fantastic tool we get to use every four years.

[Ken Burch]

277. Did 2008 make any difference to unions in Colorado?

As I recall, it didn't.

And we can only use that tool if ours is a rebel voice in the party. Unions can't fight for workers while supporting the party leadership.

Unions got no boost from the conventions in 1992, 1996, or 2000. Unless there's a primary challenger, the 2012 convention will be as meaningless for labor, progressives and the poor as those were.

[Robb]

280. The convention was not in California in 2008.

And unions can damn well fight for workers while supporting Democrats. I've been at it for years.

What union do you belong to again?

[Ken Burch]

282. Oh, sorry, Colorado.

Still, did it help workers there? Nobody's had a successful organizing there since then, IIRC.

What unions can't do is fight for workers while supporting the re-election of politicians who keep unions at arm's length. It just isn't effective.

I'm in the Inlandboatman's Union of the Pacific(maritime division of the ILWU). The Longshoremen have only been able to fight for workers by being a rebel union. When they've made the mistake of supporting the most conservative Democrat in the race(like Hahn in that special congressional election in Cali a few months ago when they should have backed Marci Winograd)they've betrayed the workers.

[Robb]

389. Plenty, actually.

CWA organized the airport shuttle drivers pretty recently, off the top of my head. Stuff like that would've been unheard of, and took intervention from the NLRB.

You get there, in a RTW state, with good visibility to the national board. You get that by being on the news every four years getting a "win" at the convention over something like this. Everyone at DU likes to talk about kabuki theater, this is a great example of a constructive version. I have no doubt everyone will be on the same page before the first balloon is inflated.

Don't envy you your high-profile union, that's for sure. I expect every time a ferry's 5 minutes late the "liberal" media blames the overpaid union workers, right? BTW I'm third generation UA. :hi:

[jeff47]

317. What local unions?

I think you underestimate just how bad the "right-to-work" laws in NC are.

[Robb]

388. Technically, they can't be worse than any other RTW state's laws.

The limit is reached in every case where they exist: "anywhere NLRA doesn't apply." :shrug:

[Hubert Flottz]

126. K&R

Solidarity! We can't support folks who can't support us.

[BadgerKid]

130. I thought Charlotte was an up-and-coming financial center.

If so, maybe that explains the choice.

[Robb]

139. I'll say what I said in February when Hoffa went off on Charlotte: good.

In fact, I'll just http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x30405#30409">post it again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x30405#30409">4. This is exactly how it played in 2008 in Denver, too. It's a good thing.

Edited on Fri Feb-04-11 12:58 PM by Robb

Hoffa Jr. was raising hell as early as March about how union-hostile Colorado was. The result was a higher profile for labor leaders, more labor issues in the news, and frankly a better environment for unions post-convention here.

It ain't all balloons and speeches.

On edit: here's an old http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5579663">Denver Post article from April 2007:

Labor issue could 'blow up'

Teamsters union leader James Hoffa Jr. joined the debate over Denver's selection as host for the Democratic National Convention by confronting Gov. Bill Ritter at a Washington dinner and promising the issue could "blow up" next summer if Colorado doesn't become more labor-friendly.

"We're very upset about it," the International Brotherhood of Teamsters president said of the Democrats' decision to stage their convention at the nonunion Pepsi Center. In an interview Monday, Hoffa also mentioned Ritter's veto of a pro-union law. "All of labor is upset," Hoffa said.

Hoffa said it is "ironic" that the Republicans are planning their convention in heavily unionized Minneapolis-St. Paul. "Maybe we should flip it and let the Republicans come to Denver," he said.

(snip)

It is not unusual for labor to use the leverage a national Democratic convention brings, observers say. At the 2004 convention, national Democrats helped mediate a labor dispute between police and the city of Boston that stopped a picket line and gained the police a new contract and big raise.

[bread_and_roses]

378. Neither Cororado nor MA is a "Right to Work" State - big difference

And if I remember correctly, in 2008 Colorado had a R-t-W initiative on the ballot? I suppose an argument could be made that having a convention with lots of Labor leaders attending could help the State Labor movement? Personally, given CO's "shadow" R-t-W laws (at the time - have not followed that in past few years) I think it would have been far better for the Ds to state publicly that they would not take their business to a State with such anti-Labor laws on the books.

In any event, that was then, this is now. In 2008 unions spent millions of $$ and millions of person-hours on Obama's election - older white men who were union members were the ONLY sub-group in that demographic to vote - and by a good margin - for Obama: and that was purely and simply the result of the incredible hard work done by union members with calls, door knocks, worksite fliers, at their own conventions that year, etc etc etc.

We had "hope" you see? We cut him slack, just as many environmentalists and peace advocates and and and did - because we had "hope" and we knew that there were particular pressures on a viable Black candidate that had to be acknowledged.

But NC IS a "Right to Work" state - anti-union legislation in place.

Holding a Convention there is a big slap in the face to organized labor - the very group that sweated blood to elect Obama - and to the rights and interests of all workers.

I guess some think that the GLBT community should not boycott states with "marriage protection" legislation too?

But don't worry too much. I have little doubt that most of our timid leadership is too married to their failed - hell, deadly - dance with the D party to make a issue of it or to follow the Trades lead.
edit: typo

[John Agar]

140. I strongly support the unions in this decision.

The WH has turned against labor, as we all know now, most recently and damningly by ordering DNC officials to "pull back" from supporting the Wisconsin recall effort.

What do they expect us to do?

[Harmony Blue]

148. That "pullback"

was a massive miscalculation reading the feeling of Democrats throughout the nation, especially in Wisconsin.

[WillyT]

144. Reap What You Sow...

:shrug:

:kick: & Rec !!!

[struggle4progress]

152. As a librul Nuth Caolinian, I am not happy that Nuth Caolina is a so-called "right-to-work" state,

but the only remedy for that is organizing here to change attitudes. I hope these AFL-CIO brothers and sisters will reconsider whether or not they might make a positive impact by attending and scoping-out the possibilities

Two steps forward, one step back

[Ozymanithrax]

157. This is about money. Why should unions underwrite the Democratic Convention..

If unions don't participate, it would deprive the party of millions of dollars that would have been spent on sky boxes and other sponsorships that usually help underwrite the convention. The move could pose a larger problem for President Barack Obama next year if an increasingly dispirited base of labor activists becomes so discouraged that it doesn't get the rank-and-file to the polls in its usual strong numbers.

Unions go, they pour money that picks up a chunk of the tab. That money then goes to enrich people who have supported unon busting.

Having a conventionin NC may be a good idea. Getting uinons to help pay for it and enrich management and investors is a bad idea.

[Divernan]

232. O's raising $billion from corporations..Unions should donate to progressive candidates.

[madrchsod]

243. what obama needs from the unions is our feet...

he needs people to hit the streets and the phones.

i`m going to work for my congress critters and obama..nope.

[Ken Burch]

228. Those attitudes can't be changed by holding a Democratic National Convention there

Especially since we can assume that(based on past experience)the convention organizers will probably bar anyone from making a pro-union speech.

What the unions should do, rather than go to that convention as delegates, is spend convention week there(staying at working people's homes rather than the anti-union hotels)helping launch massive organizing drives.

Nothing that involves endorsing any aspect of the existing power structure in NC, or posing with NC business types for photos, can be of any help to working people in NC.

Labor participation at the convention would be an endorsement of the right-to-work status quo in NC.

[Ozymanithrax]

253. I think this is a good idea.

[cstanleytech]

254. I disagree.

It would have given the unions a chance to present their case to more of the people of the state why unions can be a good thing and eventually if they had worked at it they might have gotten the whole right to work law changed and NC is a prime state to get that done as it is 10th for having the best GDP as of 2010.

[Ken Burch]

262. You are assuming the admin. would have allowed pro-union speeches

at the convention.

Without being able to speak ON TELEVISION for the labor cause, there's nothing those unions could have done by participating in the convention that would have mattered. They'd be reduced to nothing but hosting hospitality suites for the delegates(which is always a useless thing to do).

It would be impossible to be pro-labor and "on message" with the Obama line. Look at how useless it was for antiwar people and progressives to be delegates at Kerry's convention, or for progressives of any stripe to attend the conventions of 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 or 1984.

[cstanleytech]

269. Its the Democratic National Convention not a Union Convention so

its unlikely DNC would consent it to being derailed that much but it wouldnt prevented the unions from holding stuff outside nor prevent them from speaking to the local news media and forming potential contacts within the state for future use so imo they are being very shortsighted by not considering that.

[Ken Burch]

275. It's not derailing to allow unions to speak openly for the labor cause.

And no one will take them seriously as actually caring about workers if they cheer for the admin. status quo IN the convention hall.

Plus, history has shown that bland conventions don't lead to anything worthwhile from any administration elected after them.

"Staying on message" is just code for giving up on real change.

[jeff47]

318. So the people in North Carolina are so stupid they don't know what unions are?

They need a presentation to figure out unions might help?

[marions ghost]

283. that's the best idea

"What the unions should do, rather than go to that convention as delegates, is spend convention week there(staying at working people's homes rather than the anti-union hotels)helping launch massive organizing drives."

Bring some attention to the issues in a constructive way. Sounds like there's enough anger out there to do it.

[leeroysphitz]

154. This administration and the party in general is going to have to be MADE to listen.

I can't think of a better way than to hit them in the wallet and see how they like going up against Mittens short of cash.

Mr. Obama, you have a choice to make.

[October]

169. They aren't listening, that's for sure.

How could they have picked a right-to-work state and expect union funds? OMG, either stupid or a blatant tell that they don't care!

[on point]

155. GREAT! Keep sending signals until the Obama gets the message and changes course!

[amborin]

160. K&R

[ejbr]

174. k & r !! n/t

[alp227]

175. What can NC's Democratic governor Bev Purdue do? And 1968, anyone?

I didn't know that NC had the "lowest unionization rate in the country" as this article reports. Wikipedia lists 22 states with RTW (for less) laws...and here's a list of past Dem Natl Convs. Notice how the entire central section of states from North Dakota to Texas, most Rocky Mountain states, and all the former Confederate states are RTW too? (I don't know where to put Iowa in the list.)

In 1988, the DNC was held in Atlanta, a city in a right-to-work state. That was when Dukakis ran and lost to Vice President George H.W. Bush...especially after the Willie Horton/soft on crime embarrassment and debate question about death penalty. Georgia has had its RTW law .

The 1972 DNC (nominated George McGovern, who lost to the re-elected Richard Nixon) was held in Miami, and Florida enacted its RTW law .

The reason I brought up 1968 is that this boycott could start a fragment like what happened that year.

[jeff47]

322. Yep...fragmentation

Almost like it was a bad idea for the administration to ignore and then fight their base.

There's more than one party involved here. The Obama administration did not have to immediately abandon card-check. They did not have to fund healthcare reform by taxing union health plans. They didn't have to decide to embrace failed Republican ideas about the economy.

But they did. And this 'boycott' is just the first example of why this administration has been incredibly foolish.

[Major Hogwash]

380. Great post. Obama was just blackmailed by the GOP to raise the debt ceiling.

I doubt if he is going to react to the comments some of these unions have made.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a lot of noise.
There's a whole year for these unions to wise up.

[No Elephants]

406. It is possible that, in prior years, unions were happier overall with the

way that Democrats were treating them and therefore were reluctant to draw a line in the sand. However, federal Democrats have not done much for unions lately, to say the least, so unions don't have a lot to lose by refusing to attend what promises to be tantamount to a coronation of Obama.

As the song says, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."

In any event, Democrats don't own unions and unions don't owe the Democratic Party a hell of lot right now.

[MF248]

181. One of the worst laws in this country

This is ridiculous - as a labor advocate and a law student I personally believe "right to work" laws are some of the worst laws in this country. Hopefully the Democratic Party comes to its senses and relocates the convention ASAP.

[FailureToCommunicate]

200. Agreed! And Welcome to DU!

[cstanleytech]

217. I agree the laws do suck but throwing a tantrum over it like some

are doing might not be the wisest course of action to follow either.

[Divernan]

233. No tantrums here. Righteous anger & solid examples of O's anti-union policies.

[cstanleytech]

245. Has obama said he doesnt support unions at all?

[Ken Burch]

285. All he can really say is he isn't quite as bad as the right.

Working people had a right to expect more than that. He wasn't elected to be "the lesser evil".

[cstanleytech]

292. Again, has he said he doesnt support unions, yes or no?

[Ken Burch]

297. He hasn't said he's actually AGAINST unions...

but the fact that he hasn't SAID he opposes them doesn't really mean anything, compared to his actions. Labor should never have had to accept "junior partner" treatment. Nor should the poor, the dispossesed, or the activists of the Obama movement. He owed labor ACTIVE and open support in exchange for their backing.

The "independents" were not demanding that the Democratic base be kept in a subservient position in exchange for their precious "support"(support that was never THAT strong or that important, actually)and there's no hard evidence that voters who are registered as "Independent" can be assumed to be more right-wing than the base.

[cstanleytech]

305. Explain, what actions are you refering to exactly that specifically was directed

towards unions that he himself ordered that cause you to believe this.

[Ken Burch]

309. His early surrender on card-check.

Getting card-check was the only chance the labor movement had for reversing the unfair advantages that management now has in the union certification process.

The existing rules make it, for all practical purposes, impossible to organize a currently non-union workplace, even if it is clear that the vast majority of the employees clearly want union representation.

That was massive.

So are you going to stop with the "what did he specifically insist on" line on interrogation?

Clearly, labor had the right to expect that it wouldn't be just as far out in the cold as it was under Bush, Clinton and Reagan.

[cstanleytech]

320. Card check? You mean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act ?
Doesnt even look like the senate passed it if thats what you are trying to use.

[jeff47]

325. Yep. The administration surrendered on that early, but Pelosi still got it through the house. (nt)

[cstanleytech]

329. It has to pass "both" houses

not just one.

[jeff47]

347. Yes, I can sing the "I'm just a bill song"

But that's not what we're talking about at all.

Bills don't just appear on the President's desk. He can have a hand in shaping those bills. In fact, it is even possible for the President to fight for the policies he wants.

The Obama administration abandoned card-check in January 2009. Right after they got into office. With the White House actively working against the bill, it's not going to make it through a closely-divided senate.

(They were fighting against it because the WH feared getting card-check passed would take too much time away from the healthcare bill....which they then let languish for months in a desperate search for a grand bargain that they'd never get)

[Ken Burch]

330. They didn't pass it, but he didn't fight to get them to pass it, either.

And he was willing to sacrifice card-check early on in the debate over the measure. Without card-check, there was nothing of value in the bill.

[cstanleytech]

341. It would be awesome if he was god because he could fight every fight and win

by sheer divinity as it is hes just the president of the unites states who is dealing with a country staggering with a huge economic problem, 2 wars, a republican congress and senate who made it clear they would be working to block anything he wanted to do even before he was sworn in and to make sure he is a one term president and now he has democrats themselves working it seems with the republicans to insure that is the outcome.
So yea I am sure you are right he could have fought to get that specific law passed.

[Ken Burch]

345. I didn't say he could personally guarantee everything

But, after signing all the watered-down nothing stuff he did sign, he COULD have said "this isn't the end-tommorrow the struggle to get REAL change on this issue begins again". He could have used the compromise bills as a way to motivate the base to get out in 2010. If only he had given them a reason to get out, we'd have held our ground and maybe even GAINED some Senate seats. All it takes is nursing optimism and recognizing that mid-terms can only be won by nationalizing the election and energizing the base("Independents" are irrelevant in mid-terms, and there's no reason to assume they're to the right of the base anyway).

Instead, everytime he let something get pissed down to nothing (like the empty shell of a healthcare bill, a bill that was worse than getting no bill at all since it won't actually help anyone) he sent the clear message to the base "it's over and this is all you're gonna get-and you have no right to even be disappointed".

He had nothing to lose by handling things the way I suggested in the first paragraph. He gained nothing by doing it the way I described it in the second paragraph.

It's about keeping faith-you can do that and still accomodate short-term setbacks.

But Obama, as far as any of us could see, wasn't interested in that...because he wasn't interested in keeping the base in the game.

[Divernan]

291. We've learned to ignore his slick talk and judge his actions.

Like his promise to put on his comfortable shoes:

Quote Unquote: The President's Shoes

Sen. Barack Obama makes a promise on the campaign trail back in 2007…

"If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

Do citizens of Wisconsin count as Americans? I'm about 95 percent sure that they do.

[cstanleytech]

294. See my question to Ken and then try a real reply.

[Divernan]

295. See my reply. O said he'd support unions but he CAVED!

[cstanleytech]

304. Explain.

[Ken Burch]

311. You're not entitled to do this.

We don't have to prove that Obama is all out ANTI-union. It's enough that he's not fighting FOR the unions.

[cstanleytech]

321. Actually yes, you have to prove claims "you" make.

You are not allowed to just make random claims up and expect people to take you for your word without facts to backup your claims.

[Ken Burch]

328. This whole exchange started with you saying "prove it"

And you demanded proof for an accusation nobody actually made. Nobody SAID Obama was 100% against the labor movement. What was said was that he wasn't really all that much on labor's side.

So there was no "random claim". There are simply viewpoints you happen to disagree with.

[cstanleytech]

331. Actually you still have to prove that claim as well

which you still havent done.

[Ken Burch]

338. Which claim is that?

I don't have to prove that Obama isn't particulary pro-labor. His record proves that.

His support of "free trade"(a position that is always anti-worker) proves that.

His indifference to the Wisconsin recall proves that.

Now we're done with your whole freaking inquisition.

[cstanleytech]

340. The "he wasn't really all that much on labor's side" part is what claim

I am refering to, if you want to play pretend and claim hes anti union or doesnt support the unions (same thing imo) thats ok though.

[Ken Burch]

343. And I did prove that.

He's been a fair-weather friend at best. Half-support is worthless.

And neither I nor anyone else in this thread claimed that Obama had SAID he was against the unions. So your whole cross-examination on that was unjustified.

You can't just say that Obama is pro-labor until proven anti-labor.

[cstanleytech]

344. But see thats where you are wrong.

I did not say that I believed he is or was pro labor just that if you want to make claims you should back it up with solid facts rather than the shaky foundation built largely of your own opinion.

[Ken Burch]

346. And I didn't SAY that he'd said he was against the unions

So you had no reason to ask me to prove that he'd said that, given that I'd never SAID he'd said that. OK?

[cstanleytech]

350. Seemed like you were saying as much to me but fair enough.

[Divernan]

385. What part of "comfortable shoes" "Wisconsin" do you fail to comprehend?

We progressives do understand what motivates your incessant postings, by the way.

[Ken Burch]

310. He didn't HAVE to say "I'm officially against the labor movement"

to justify the decision of these unions. It doesn't have to be that absolute. Why are you acting as if labor had no right to expect anything more than "slightly less evil than Reagan" from this administration?

[Divernan]

386. OT: I'm wondering. Who among us is employed by the White House

to respond to anti-Obama posts on progressive blogs. We know it's done. The White House has admitted it. I think in the spirit of Obama's vaunted campaign promise of transparency, these posters should identify themselves and each of their posts should have a disclaimer: "This post was paid for by U.S. taxpayers via the salary of a White House staffer."
_________________________________

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.

"This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response," read an internal memo from Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, provided to The Huffington Post. "For the last two years, Jesse has often worn two hats working in new media and serving as the White House's liaison with the progressive media and online community. Starting this week, Jesse will take on the second role full time working on outreach, strategy and response."

The post is a new one for this White House. Rapid response has been the purview of the Democratic National Committee (and will continue to be). Lee's hire, however, suggests that a portion of it will now be handled from within the administration. It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/white-house-online-rapid-response_n_865652.html


"Friday afternoon, the White House quietly released its annual report to Congress on White House staff salaries. Among the employees is the infamous director of progressive media and online response, Jesse Lee, who is paid $72,500 a year to provide White House sanctioned responses to any negative press it receives.

There are at least 17 staffers with titles referencing the Office of Public Engagement or Online Engagement. These “engagers” are among the top earners in the White House. Fourteen of the 17 earn $50,000 or more. Chicago crony Valerie Jarrett, the White House senior adviser who oversees OPE, receives a salary of $172,200 a year. Michael Strautmanis, deputy assistant to the president and counselor to the senior adviser for strategic engagement, earns $150,000. Nathanael Tamarin, a special assistant to the president for public engagement, makes $96,900 a year.

The director of OPE, Jon Carson, pulls in $153,000 annually. Carson’s deputy, Brian Bond, boasts a $93,840 yearly salary. OPE deputy directors Greg Nelson and Anne Filipic earn $92,000.

What, exactly, are all these minions paid to do? OPE describes itself as “allow(ing) the views of the ordinary American citizen to be more readily heard within the administration” and coordinating “events that bring members of the administration in contact with members of the public.” In reality, it’s another publicly subsidized Obama spin operation by a different name.


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/aubrey-vaughan/2011/07/06/white-house-uses-progressive-media-director-bully-conservatives-twit#ixzz1UuYf6whs

[radhika]

190. Unions have been taken for granted way too long....

The Dems need to be reminded that union support runs two ways. In these times of the collapsing middle class, labor needs support. They did robust work in 2008, but look: no EFCA, Arne's war against teacher unions, silence from national Dems on WI/MI/OH stripping of union rights.

I applaud their NC boycott, hope they stand strong.

[SoapBox]

204. K & R

[Betsy Ross]

215. K&R in Solidarity. n/t

[MaineDem]

229. I think Charlotte was a bad choice for the Convention

I sometimes wonder just what POTUS' advisers are thinking. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I assume (Being very Pollyannaish here) that there will be negotiations with the Unions. There will be concessions and some sort of mitigation to allow the Convention to go on without any picket lines. Or else all hell breaks loose.

[cstanleytech]

249. Perhaps its as simple as them thinking

"You know it might be a good idea to hold it in NC to show my thanks to the democrats in the state for helping us win there in 2008" and they probably didnt realize that there would be any opposition by unions to it before.

[dash_bannon]

235. I agree with the unions but...

While I agree with the unions taking a stand against Democrats, I think it will only push the Democrats further to the right. To win elections, both Democrats and Republicans need money. If the unions sit out, I think the Democrats are ready to split with them and just go whole hog corporatist.

[cstanleytech]

250. I do not believe it will push them to right

at all rather I think it will probably cause greater division in the party and cause obama to be a one term president like carter thus some democrats would in essence be aiding and abetting the republicans in what they swore they would work at doing.

[jeff47]

324. Why do you pretend the administration has no agency here?

The Obama administration decided to immediately abandon card-check. They decide to fund healthcare reform by taxing union health plans. In fact they gave them the derogatory "Cadillac Health Plan" name. The administration did not have to embrace failed Republican ideology on the economy.

But the administration did. And this 'boycott' is just one example of why it was so dumb for the administration to abandon their base in desperate search for a "grand bargain".

Blaming the unions for this is like blaming the victim in an abuse case.

[Goldstein1984]

238. Good--Active non-participation, as opposed to apathy...

sends a message and de-legitimizes the results.

[madrchsod]

252. it`s interesting how many people do not understand the lessons from wisconsin

we can`t waste our time and money on the national election. labors real fight is in the states.

obama has made it clear he does`t need us and we should make it clear we don`t need him. he`ll get his billion for tv ads without us.

[sendero]

255. IMHO..

.... the choice of SC is not the only reason for this, it's just the last straw.

[Island Blue]

261. Charlotte isn't in SC. Never has been, never will be.

Just thought I'd point that out. The 2 Carolinas are not exactly interchangeable. ;-)

[Ken Burch]

267. One state elected Strom Thurmond over and over.

the other elected Jesse Helms over and over.

The difference is...?

[marions ghost]

287. More people from NY and California maybe?

the two biggest states to lose residents to NC.

The state has changed in significant ways since the Helms days. You should update. Dunno where you are but it must be a long way from the southeast. Go to NC and SC. You will see big differences.

I don't care one way or the other where the convention is held, but I think it could be a good opportunity for some points to be made about support of unions.

[Ken Burch]

289. Maybe, but if they can't be heard on the convention floor

(and we can assume Obama will forbid pro-labor speeches)those points won't be heard.

I hope things go better there in the future than in 2010. But it's hard to see any hope there after that. I'd love to be wrong, though.

There won't be any Dem gains in NC if Obama insists on making the national party's fall campaign bland and centrist. There isn't any actual constituency for "bipartisanship" anywhere.

[marions ghost]

298. Yes Obama's in a tight spot

wherever the convention is.

Things could go either way in NC.

[Endangered Specie]

259. Pointless move, NC is one of the most progressive states in the South, and recently

went blue for the first time in godonlyknowshowlong.

[Ken Burch]

263. 2010 ended that.

NC is going to just go further and further right now. And playing footsie with anti-union local pols can't change that.

It's just going to be back in the Jesse Helms thing from now on.

We can assume the state Dem organization will never allow any non-Blue Dogs ever to be nominated again. And it can't be worth replacing Helms types with just Blue Dogs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

273. GOOD! Maybe we need a "UNION PARTY"

How about that?

[Ken Burch]

278. Possibly.

It's not like unions gain anything from the election of Dems that keep them at arms length. Unions in California haven't gained anything from Jerry Brown, who's vetoed every piece of labor legislation that actually mattered so far(and thus will keep doing so in the future). When Brown refused to do what he was morally obligated to do and sign the farmworker organizing bill, he proved he didn't care about any workers.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

290. I'd change to the Union Party, if they came up with one. nt

[0n1n3]

312. I would settle for a Democratic Party that doesn't act like Republicans

and keeps their campaign promises. I saw them distancing themselves after 2008 and it seemed like they didn't care about the consequences. Maybe now they will give it more consideration.

[kimsarah]

327. How about

a Progressive Party that accommodates and respects labor and the middle and lower classes. Both current parties seem to be doing a good job alienating unions, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, teachers, firefighters, police officers, gays and lesbians, scientists, health care professionals, and more. That's a pretty good-sized voting block.

[Ken Burch]

334. "a good-sized bloc"? Hell, it's a MAJORITY!

It's just that our party's leaders hadn't wanted to get THAT majority out to the polls.

[Divernan]

384. Us senior citizens are very disgusted w/O & both parties as well & we always vote.

A lot of incumbents of both parties will be out on their well-funded-by-lobbyists butts in 2012. So I sincerely hope that all the Blue Dog dems get primaried.

[DFW]

300. It sounds like a carefully thought-out choice

Poorly reasoned, but carefully.

[cottonseed]

306. Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[Bluebear]

356. Oh yeah, you know those whiny unions. Always cutting off their noses.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

371. Unions: the Voldemorts of American politics?

:eyes:

[AllyCat]

308. Good on them. It's time to find a party that represents the workers (union or not)

and sitting this one out is a good way to hold cash from flowing into a RTW for less state.

[Freddie Stubbs]

444. There are union workers in NC. I wonder how they would agree with you

[immoderate]

337. Obama's plan: Look like a Democrat while doing Republican policies.

Wasserman-Schultz does not impress.


--imm

[cstanleytech]

362. Ok its true

obama has upheld some of policies bush put into place for what i assume were political reasons like gitmo and i disagree with him for doing so however my question here is can you define exactly what qualifies as a democrat and do so in such a way that atleast 90% of the people on the DU would agree with you?

[immoderate]

390. A Democrat would reduce the Gini Index.

The Gini Index is a measure of wealth disparity. Ours is now about 47. The same as it was in 1929. During the sixties, it was 10 points lower.

Obama NEVER does anything that would lower the Gini Index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient


--imm

[cstanleytech]

407. And how does he do that exactly?

Because so far I am not aware of anything that he could do atm that would really work 100%.
Sure offhand he could have said no to signing the the extension to the bush tax cuts but if I recall correctly didnt he extend them because he was hoping it would help stimulate the economy by getting to hire more people (which of course the companies largely sat on the money instead) and because he wanted more unemployment benefits for people out of work?

But even if he had told them to shove the blackmail to get extra unemployment benefit and let the lower taxes expire the question then is how much would those have changed things because didnt the loopholes that companies like ge used in order to pay zero taxes still exist? If they did then we would still be shit out of luck.

The only thing to resolve the disparity that I can really think that might work is an inheritance tax (which i do support btw) but that might take decades to bring about enough change.

[No Elephants]

411. That so misses the point. We did not think we were electing yet another trickle down President.

We voted for change, remember? Change from even Clinton!

HE promised change--and tax increases for all those with income over %250K a year, over and over and over and over. Then he appointed a Republican Wall Street guy Secretary of Treasury, re-appointed a Republican Secretary of Defense, and re-appointed Bernanke head of the Fed. The biggest change in these very critical areas of government from Bush was trading one Wall Street devoteee, Geithner, an older model, Paulsen. Big whup.

I could go on further about the change we voted for and never got, but what is the point?

BTW, he never said he extended tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but that is classic trickle down. No to mention, the tax cuts had already been in place for years and had not stimulated poo. And HE is the one who campaigned on that being a failed policy.

[cstanleytech]

413. I'll keep it simple. What would it take to fix the disparity?

[immoderate]

414. Everything in the system now is designed to increase the Gini.

Obama has the power of the US presidency. What will he do with them?

--imm

[cstanleytech]

416. And the list of things he can do to address it without the approval of congress?

[immoderate]

419. What? -- And get accused of "class warfare?"

Why drop so much as a hint as to what is really going on? :shrug:

--imm

[cstanleytech]

421. I mean it.

What exactly could he do that he would not be required to get congress to approve to fix the whole disparity of wealth?

[immoderate]

422. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, push the convention to a union state.

When the republicans shut down the country, bring the troops home to keep it going, with citizen volunteers if necessary. Declare the Congress a threat under the Patriot Act, and confine them to the Capitol until the get their shit together.

We're dealing with cascading failures here. One leads to another.

Let's not play "impossible expectations." I can't say what he might have accomplished, but I can detect no position he took maintained on any issue that would hint at redistributing the wealth. It's obvious which master he serves.

Doing nothing means it gets worse. The system functions that way.

--imm

[cstanleytech]

423. You do realize that there is almost a 100% chance he would be impeached

if he tried that against congress thus its a bit silly to even suggest if unless impeachment is the goal.
Furthermore moving the convention makes no sense for changing the disparity of wealth either.

[immoderate]

429. They can't impeach him if they are under arrest.

Some of my remarks might border on hyperbole, but it's a reaction to the notion that he cold not have done anything differently.

Supporting unions won't change wealth disparity??


--imm

[cstanleytech]

432. Actually its not called hyperbole, its called treason.

And no, supporting the unions over this wont help change the disparity of wealth we have right now, helping them spread their message to workers in the other states might but by boycotting the entire thing they cant spread any message except one to the corporations in that state that the unions dont have the balls for a fight.

[immoderate]

433. Well there at least one thing we seem to agree on...

Obama will never do anything that will lower the Gini index.

--imm

[cstanleytech]

434. Yes he wont because its not an ability he has.

[immoderate]

435. That's where we break. I don't believe the president is helpless at the

most important thing he was elected to do.

Sounds like we should get someone more effective in there.


--imm

[cstanleytech]

436. The presidents powers are limited regardless

of who is holding the office so getting someone else in there will be worthless if he cant get the votes in the house and senate him unless of course you amend the constitution that would grant the president the powers of a monarch.

[immoderate]

438. Or somebody better.

--imm

[cstanleytech]

440. Nope

Even if you got someone that you believed was better they would still have to deal with the house and senate, in the end it comes to that piece of paper called the constitution.

[immoderate]

442. That you Barack?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1741310&mesg_id=1741537

--imm

[No Elephants]

412. Pre-or Post DLC? I think we all know what traditional Democratic values were.

What DLC values are is something else.

[dsc]

342. I will say this

that if they were going to boycott they should have said so when NC was chosen. That said, I agree with the idea of the boycott. This is a virulently anti union state. I think unions poll worse than gay folk do here. I vividly remember mistakenly calling the NCAE (NEA in North Carolina) a union, you would have thought I advocated killing puppies.

[Bluesbreaker]

365. NEA Should Follow Suit

Obama and Arne Duncan have done more to destroy teaching and public schools in this country than any president and secretary of education, including G.W. Bush and Margaret Spellings. Obama's doubled down on privatizing schools and using failed approaches, like charter schools, vouchers and using student test scores to evaluate teachers. If the teacher unions have any self-respect, they will avoid NC like the plague.

[Major Hogwash]

369. Litmus tests always fail.

These unions let Republicans join them, don't they?

[No Elephants]

404. What does any of that have to do with union leaders boycotting an anti-union state?

[Major Hogwash]

418. These unions are made up of Republicans and Democrats and everything else under the sun.

They're not political PACs or beholden to any certain political party or act as an extension of a political party.

Pretty simple, actually.

If the boneheads of these unions don't want to go to next year's DNC, I'm sure they can find someone else who would be willing to go.
I have never seen an empty seat at the DNC.
Not for long, anyway.
Trying to get seats, or to speak at the DNC is one of the hardest tickets to get ahold of.

Democrats don't win elections by being wimps or pussies and not going in to the Republican's territory.
Colorado was a right to work state and we went there in 2008.

All of that has been stated previously in this thread.

[randr]

387. Proving once again that the only the Democrats can loose

is when they ruin their own chances of success.

[RedCloud]

397. Unions should go and promote their ideas! Those folks have heard only one side.

[Harmony Blue]

417. The Administration has been running the opposite direction

when it comes to labor fights throughout the country. Why should the unions make the assumption the Administration will give them a platform to state their case?