Eccentric Flower:201102/Shot Own Feet
From Eccentric Flower
«February 2011 «Eccentric Flower
Shot Own Feet
This is kinda recycled from some brief thoughts I posted on Twitter this morning, so if you are in the intersection of "people who read this journal" and "people who read my Twitter feed," I apologize.
So, I haven't wanted to comment on this too much in recent days, because I have a friend who is in the process of getting scrod by the Cro-Magnon governor of Wisconsin, but I am not overly partial to unions. This is because for most of my personal history, my encounters with unions have been negative. I realize, objectively, that unions often serve a genuine need; however, even when I was a kid, what was reinforced was that unions:
- tried to secure the most money possible for their employees while guaranteeing their right to be as unproductive as possible;
- insisted that makework be created and/or useless positions be filled (featherbedding);
- tended to have corrupt leadership which was just as likely to screw its members as anybody else;
- were extremely, obstreperously resistant to change of any kind.
Over the years I have mitigated my opinion, because I have encountered some good unions among the bad. At the university I work for, which will not be named here, I encounter one example of each: The janitors and other low-level service workers have a good union, which prevents them from being routinely treated like shit -
[Digression: I don't understand people being rude to low-level custodial and service staff. I just don't. I try always to have at least a smile for our custodial staff, even on the worst mornings, because they are nice people doing a dirty job and I can't imagine why anyone would want to make it any less pleasant. Yet I know it happens; it happens a lot. (I see students doing it sometimes and I want to slap them.) Are people rude to janitors because they think these people are somehow not human because of the work they do?]
- and the non-salaried office staff have their own union, which as far as I can tell, exists mostly to bitch and whine every time the university tries to cut some dead wood. Apparently their mantra is that no one should ever lose their job, ever, even if they are useless.
Sure, there's such a thing as punitive, retributive cuts. The vindictive kind. Please see: Wisconsin. But at the particular school where I work, when the budget cuts hit, we chose staff reductions very carefully - we cut only people who were not really doing their job, people who would have been fired years before if it were even slightly easier to fire someone in academia. And while I am not made of stone, and I did feel bad for our ex-communications person who understood no technology later than the telegraph (she was crying as she left the building), the fact was, we could not begin to clean up our extremely disfunctional p.r. and web operations until she was gone. Of course, the union didn't scream to have her back; she was salaried. That union secretly believes that all us salaried folk are The Enemy and we can go to hell.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not real happy right now with any group that routinely makes out some other group to be The Enemy without any actual good reason.
Which, in an Emersonian way, brings us to this asshat in Indiana.
Now, y'all know I don't like Mother Jones and I do not link her casually, so I must think this is Something Special. And it is: Special crazy. Go read as much of it as you can stand.
I wrote all the stuff about my own on-the-fence-but-slightly-negative stance on unions to give background for my next statement: It amazes me just how much some of the people on the right hate unions. I mean, okay, obviously this Indiana guy is a few spoons shy of a silverware drawer, but the sheer vehemence emanating from (for example) the governor's mansion in Wisconsin astounds me.
(Oh, and don't believe anything he says about the economic reasons. He had a surplus which he deliberately squandered so he could take the axe to people who didn't deserve it. What he's doing is purely out of hate.)
As I said on Twitter, this shows who is really running the right - still is, always has been - despite Tea Parties and other antics. Because who really hates unions this much? Big capital, that's who. Exploiters. Potential exploiters. What the governor of Wisconsin has shown, more than anything else, is who he has chosen to cast his lot with, who he prefers to suck up to.
Of course the question - it's the political question of the last forty years and will continue to be the big question for a while yet - is how so many poor people got suckered into falling in with the right.
This is the point where I insist once again that you run, do not walk, and get yourself a copy of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? if you have not already read it. I'm not going to attempt to summarize his thesis; I will just say that I consider this to be one of the most important pieces of political demystification of the last two decades.
But it has been brought to my attention that Frank may not have all of the answer. Sure, the right used the trickery he described to successfully steal the populist crowd off to a place where they are a very poor fit, all so cleverly that they're still not aware they have been tricked. But the left may have been complicit in this as well.
From a Neil Gabler Globe editorial earlier this week (quoted pretty extensively because I'm not sure how long that link will be available):
I will comment no further except to say that I think Gabler may be onto something. And I say that as someone whose only deep bigotry, whose one really strong indefensible bias, is against willful ignorance. The thing is, though, my bias is directed at someone who chooses to remain stupid. It doesn't cover people who are willing to learn. That's a very important distinction. I am often greatly ignorant myself. We are not measured by our ignorance, but by our willingness to correct it.
Even if you accept the idea that Liberals Are Smarter (and I'm not sure I do), it is possible to teach, to instruct, to lead without condescension. But we're not even trying to do so anymore.
I think that the left is falling down on the job. I think right now the left are divided into two broad theories of action: The appeasers, who think the key to success is gradually moving rightward (which has the sad effect of shifting the 'center' into a place we don't want it to be); and the holdouts, who believe in absolutely no compromise under any circumstances. I happen to think that both of these groups are wrong.
Just to be clear, I was not talking about students avoiding the janitorial staff nor cringing in horror from them. Some of the students are verbally or physically rude to them. On the other hand, these same students tend to be verbally or physically rude to everyone, so I don't want to make more out of this than there actually is. We have a lot of divas here.
I for one would be interested in hearing more about the state of, and general public regard of, unions in an ex-Communist nation.
-- 16:54, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
"At the particular school where I work, when the budget cuts hit, we chose staff reductions very carefully - we cut only people who were not really doing their job, people who would have been fired years before if it were even slightly easier to fire someone in academia."
Sadly, not all universities or other employers are as good at layoffs as your employer. My previous employer did a round of layoffs that left plenty of the old-timers doing we-never-quite-knew-what and some of the overpaid exec types, and cut people who actually did meaningful work. I'm not sure having a union would have helped any of us -- and I live in a "Right to Work" anti-union state anyway. Unions can be corrupt and stubborn about continuing to retain bad workers. But no one's suggested a workable alternative yet, and "trust your employers to do right" ain't it.
-- 17:07, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I recognize that. The thing is, I expect them to use more judgement - "retain everyone at all costs" is just as bad a policy as "fire people wantonly." If a union cannot know/evaluate its members well enough to say, "Well, sorry, but we can see why they let you go, let's see about trying to work on those problems so we can get you rehired/more desirable somewhere else," then it strikes me it is falling down on at least some part of its basic function: To look after the interests of its workers.
I certainly don't trust the employers to do right. But I don't always trust the unions to do right either. What I want is more doing right on both sides.
I know, I know, I'm a crazy dreamer.
-- 17:17, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I believe Gabler is spot on. (I was also glad to see you condescend to acknowledge that the left is not necessarily smarter. 8-)) I have endured that very condescension for years. "Ah, you poor soul, so naive, so unrealistically optimistic, so blind to how things REALLY are." Leftists, it seems, are always so sad, so burdened by the weight of all that is horrible in the world. Hey, I'm not happy about the horror, either, and I think it's unfair to say that all of us eeevil Capitalists are neglecting the ravaged. Would you consider Bill Gates a leftist, f'rinstance? However, I'm able to find considerable brightness and wonder buried in the rubble, which the so-called intellectuals seem inclined to overlook, as if anything positive would weaken their position. Much gnashing of teeth and shaking of heads at the very idea that things aren't as bad as they would have us believe. Indeed, we are headed to Hell in a handbasket. See? There I go again, hiding my head in the sand.
As for unions, I'm convinced they single-handedly killed the American auto industry. Union salary agreements continue to price American labor out of existence. For example, nobody uses U.S. crewmen in commercial shipping. The union rules and regulations make employing American seamen cost-prohibitive. Sure, our sailors are the safest and best-paid in the world. They just can't find jobs. (They are also, last I heard, prohibited from working on anything but a U.S.-flagged vessel.)
Unions had a purpose when children worked in coal mines and cotton factories. It'd be great if there were some way to make them exist for the benefit of their members, and not just to further their own existence. As an entity which allows for thoughtful discussion and consideration of real or perceived grievances; for keeping the membership informed of proposed changes which could affect their circumstances; as a united voice to make the views of the workers known to management; a union has an important place in the workplace. And management is well-advised to heed the voice of the workforce. Sadly, though, so many unions today are corrupt and, in their own way, no better than the management they despise.
-- 17:56, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I know, I know, I'm a crazy dreamer.
That wasn't up yet, when I was composing my comment. Seems to be the very thing I'VE been accused of. And here I am, a little-right-of centrist. Go figger.
-- 18:01, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
As someone who did janitorial work at a college for a year, I'm going to say that the nastiness that you witnesses arises from fear. Class fear, fear of falling, the fearfulness of a guilty conscience -- one way or another, fear.
-- 18:43, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
Oh, man, don't worry about offending me by bitching about unions. The only ones I've dealt with often are musicians unions and TA unions, and both are incredibly aggravating. I take particular delight in throwing the TA union reps out of my lab when then come visiting. I'm not big fan.
That said, I also find a lot of people aggravating and am not a big fan. I still think they have a right to EXIST and, like, fucking DO SHIT. Because I am not an EVIL ASSHOLE.
So that's why I'm marching with the unions.
-- 18:45, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I want to agree with Danima in " I'm going to say that the nastiness that you witnesses arises from fear. Class fear, fear of falling, the fearfulness of a guilty conscience -- one way or another, fear. "
Would I be banned if I confess in yearning for "Like" or, the LJ way of "+1" to use under Danima's comment?
-- 18:53, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I was looking for a way to +1 a comment on a forum that didn't have such a feature the other day, so, no, I don't think I consider that a sin.
-- 18:58, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I am going to tell you people about my TAs. Collectively, our TAs teach a couple thousand undergraduates a year how to do chemical experiments. The labs in which they do so are about sixty years out of spec, and the legislature has denied our requests for funding to bring them up to modern safety specs. The conditions under which they work are CONSIDERABLY more dangerous than a coal mine or cotton mill. And, by the way, Bunny, I know from coal mines; my dad is a mining engineer, and I have been visiting coal mines since I was about eight. And despite the decades of technological advancement that have made them a shit ton safer to work in, coal companies still regularly skimp on safety regulations, which means that the only people looking out for the safety of coal miners CONTINUES to be the unions.
But I was talking about my TAs. This bill doubles the cost of health care to all state employees; triple if they have family members on their health plans. Now, for me, that money is insignificant, because I am comfortably upper middle class. My students, however, are barely making a living wage, and an extra hundred dollars a month out of their pocket is a big goddamn deal. This is going to hurt our department's ability to recruit and retain the best graduate students, which means that we WON'T have the best and brightest shepherding premeds through our poor, shoddy, out-of-spec labs.
And, meanwhile, this regressive tax hits the graduate students who are the goddamn economic future of the state. Our graduates have launched some of the biggest and most profitable start-up companies in the city. We train the future technologists and innovators and capitalists who are the economic engine that will drive the economic recovery of the country.
This bill makes no economic sense. The unions, the TAs, and even the university have offered financial concessions in return for maintaining the right of workers to organize and bargain for their own safety. And yet the governor will not so much as meet with Democrats or union reps offering the compromise position. This is a political potshot, by an ideologue whose goal is to destroy unions.
Let's argue later about whether unions are good or bad or whatever. I am not a liberal looney-toon; ideology of all stripes pisses the fuck out of me. But this bill is a disaster. And the rhetoric from the right is so fucking looney-toon and totally divorced from ACTUAL DATA that it makes me think that democracy is fundamentally broken in American, and that we are all fucked. We are all fucked! We're fucked.
-- 19:07, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
Peebles, I didn't mean to imply that all unions are inherently bad. I just wish more unions were inherently better. Sadly, the shenanigans of the few reflect upon them all.
-- 19:54, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
@Peebles: "[I]t makes me think that democracy is fundamentally broken in American, and that we are all fucked."
No, the problem is that democracy is functioning exactly as it should -- the radical right elected a governor and a majority of the legislature, which promptly set about to fucking (in the bad sense of the word) the minority in order to redistribute wealth and gut the political power of the unions. (Rachel Maddow made the point the other night that of the top 10 political donors in the last election cycle, 7 were Republican/conservative, and the other 3 were unions; gut the unions, and the right-wing gets to run the table with its money.)
Is it vulgarly self-promotional to say I have a related rant about democracy here http://profrobert.livejournal.com/66365.html ?
-- 20:09, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
That reminds me, Robert, I meant to commend this to your attention:
http://www.economist.com/node/18178389?story_id=18178389
-- 20:16, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
I agree with The Economist's conclusions on Obama and Egypt.
-- 21:01, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
Mel:
I think people overestimate how much of the problem between the far left and the populist far right is pure condescension. I mean, I'm not denying at all that that figures in there, but I think more of it is the religious problem. To put it very, very broadly, right-wingers are religious and left-wingers are not, or at least, a Christian left-winger practices their religion in such a different way that it might as well be an entirely different religion from the one the tea-partiers do. (And I in fact DO consider it to be essentially a different religion, but that's a subject for another day.) And part of the condescension that the right talks about so much is because the non-religious lefties, in particular, just are utterly baffled by what they see as religious extremism. Without necessarily going into abortion and all the other factors that spring from that, I just want to get that idea into the debate.
-- 23:14, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
Mel, I agree with you. I, too, am utterly baffled by fundies, and religious extremism in general. And I'm right of Center, so I can imagine how the Left must see this dilemma. Not sure condescension is the way to combat it, but I can understand the consternation of the Left.
-- 00:31, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
My first job out of high school was running a stat camera in a union print shop. At some point I was pulled aside by the folks on the shop floor and told to slow down, 'cause I was making the rest of 'em look bad. I went looking for another job. When I said this, I was told by management that they'd love to pay me more to keep me, but union rules forbade it.
I decided I'd never work in a union shop.
Charlene's job requires that she be in a union. She works for a county school district. The union is the only thing that maintains sanity in that management structure.
I've seen the bad and the good.
What bothers me most about the current Republican whackodom is that I used to be a hardcore libertarian. I'm currently exposed to a bunch of situations that reinforce some of those notions that there are things that government just shouldn't be involved in. But the utter idiocy of much of the stance coming from that side of the political spectrum makes me close up ranks and side with the other guys.
The Tea Party has done more for the Democrats and government power than any number of self-proclaimed Marxists or Socialists or even Progressives.
-- 05:30, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
I know I'm in the minority in this crowd on this, but I just don't buy that religion is to blame. Many of the most influential progressive leaders were motivated by religion (King, Gandhi, all manner of abolitionists, etc.). I think the left has made a tactically terrible move to alienate religious people in one broad stroke.
I think the problem is that the right wing is totally fine with lying. Today Fox News reported on a poll that said that a majority of Americans supported Walker in his fight with state workers unions. Except that the poll said exactly the opposite; Fox switched the numbers to favor Walker. I don't know how you would read this as anything other than a deliberately deceptive tactic; that's not the kind of mistake that a news organization makes, especially when the poll's press release comes out with copy saying the exact opposite.
And that's just the latest. The whole thing about Obama not being a citizen -- they're STILL saying that shit. And it's not just the fringy whackados, it's elected Republican leaders like Bachmann, it's mainstream media pundits like Beck and Limbaugh and Coulter.
The problem is that the corporations that own the Republican party have a shit ton of money and have hired brilliantly evil strategists who aren't afraid to say fuck-all to advance their agenda. It's not that rank and file Republicans are stupid, they're just getting fed a constant diet of misinformation and outright lies so that the Republican leadership can exploit them. How can you have a democracy when one side is willing to be so brutally evil?
And that's how I ended up more cynical than Columbine. The end.
-- 06:08, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
Mel:
I'm not saying that religion is the whole problem, either - I'm saying that it's a big factor that nobody likes to talk about and so its influence on the whole thing gets largely ignored.
Am I the only one that thinks Michelle Bachmann actually believes all that junk she spouts? I think she's a genuine fringy wackado who also happens to be an elected Republican leader.
And yeah, I'm not going to argue with the whole "brilliantly evil" line of thinking - especially now that I've seen how they just happen to be rolling all these anti-union bills out all over the country at the same time. That's no coincidence, that's for sure. Although it seems to be backfiring on them to some degree, so it's yet to be seen how brilliant it actually is.
-- 06:48, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
Along the lines of Fox News Lies:
They just showed a video clip purporting to be the "violent" protests in Madison, and there are palm trees in the background.
You know. The palm trees native to Wisconsin.
-- 04:29, 2 March 2011 (GMT)
Thomas:
That sets my mind off into two different rambles, but neither is relevant to the main topic (one being the why it is only human even if wrong for students to cringe in horror from the manual work staff and the other an overview of the unions in my corner of world. Amusing and nostalgic - the part of nostalgia that is not about yearning the past back, the other kind that is just as powerful, though - while not relevant for your entry at all.
-- 16:42, 23 February 2011 (GMT)