I was wondering about something. People are talking about how they are being affected by the recession, and changes they are making in their personal spending. Now, in the 3-plus years since I left the bank, I have experienced a 50% increase in my salary, so I am doing better financially then ever in my working career. Heck, I'm thinking of buying a house, which - while a definite change in spending - isn't exactly the sort of thing meant by the talking heads.
Has the economic downturn affected you negatively? Has it curtailed your spending? Are you worried about losing your job? House? Do you think that what President Obama is attempting to do will work, or will it make things worse?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
163 comments:
I know I'm being naive but it's hard not to slap your head when seeing that Wells Fargo is reporting a 3 billion dollar profit for the first quarter, with more banks ready to report similar ones... so this is how a big bank bail out works?
"Smedley, how does the bottom line look this quarter?"
" We lost 5 billion but the goobers gave us 8, so we're up 3"
"Excellent, Smedley, excellent..."
Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Michael.
Krugman is not sure whether we should trust Wells Fargo's projected profits, and Wells Fargo may be well off relative to other banks.
At any rate, the flame wars died down because people don't how to flame.
Here's how's it's done.
The current crisis is pounding the legal industry. Some big firms are going out of business entirely; all are laying off 50 to 100 -- some of them partners. Smaller healthy firms will be replacing borderline attorneys with good ones recently laid off. Same thing is going on with staff, too, of course. Many people who last year had money to buy houses, etc., this year will have nothing.
I know it's hard to feel sorry for the average lawyer and even harder to sympathize with an aggressive hotshot right out of a fancy school. But some of those folks do not come from monied backgrounds, and may be carrying $100,000 or more in student loan debt (especially if they went straight from undergrad to law school). And as I understand it, student loan debt is not the kind you can get rid of in bankruptcy.
Just imagine: a population suffused with angry, hungry lawyers. Yikes.
wv: lessinc. hmmm.
oops here's the link on how to flame right
http://tiny.cc/ysW2M
I do feel the pinch, but it's mostly psychological. I'm *trying* to curtail our spending somewhat, but it's not because my salary has gone down or because I'm seriously worried I'm going to lose my job (I am only somewhat anxious about it. I know its a possibility, but not - knock on wood - a serious one).
So, I'm paying off my debt (which is what I was doing anyway), but saving more cash and letting more credit ride. Still eating out too much, but trying to waste less food overall.
Thinking about a refinance to lock in a lower rate and overall not looking to make any big purchases this year (aside from the wedding). If not for the wedding, I would be totally interested in buying another place on the cheap and fixing it up - but this is not the year to do it.
I think companies like WFB need new restrictions - and dare I say "salary caps" for their highest paid executives. I think that would be a relief to many people - just to know that the executive is not going to get a 30 million dollar bonus for that quarter even though people were laid off (or mayb because people were laid off). They're a bunch of greedy bastards.
AN OFF-TOPIC BUT URGENT MESSAGE!
>
Amazing Fact: If a female ferret goes into heat but can’t get any sex, she will die
This is a female specific problem; female ferrets can go into extended heat - during which time they must breed or they can die of aplastic anemia - a condition in which the bone marrow stops producing enough new blood cells (caused by estrogen toxicity.) This is because female ferrets are induced ovulators, so mating is required to bring the female out of heat. Intact females, if not mated, will remain in heat, and after some time the high levels of estrogen will cause the bone marrow to stop producing red blood cells.
Since the 'economic downturn,' all of my working-class friends are doing much better, it's everyone else I know who is doing worse. If you're living close to the bone already, the 'downturn' causes nary a ripple.
For example, last year, a friend of mine and his wife were both unemployed and reduced to living on another friend's living room floor (with the resident 8 cats!). This year, he 's working full time (as a Fry Cook, no less) and can afford to move into his own place. His wife is now working part-time too.
Last year, I was only working two part-time jobs, now I have 3. Which is good, because blank discs for my endless music downloading are cheap, but not free. ;-)
a pretty hard look at our political culture by an esteemed diplomat. Very long--not for suzagood.
http://tiny.cc/U82pN
Michael - I'm curious how much of that profit is due to the relaxing of the 'mark to market' accounting standard. Way back when, as an accounting major, we were taught about "LOCM - Lower Of Cost of Market", which meant you valued your investments at their lowest possible value. You never recorded a gain until you sold the investment at a profit.
Nowadays, you can value your investments at what you'd like to sell them for, whether there is an existing market for them or not!!! Did we learn nothing from ENRON!?!?!?!?!
Krugman cites an article that suggests that WFC is playing a smoke and mirrors game not so much by suspending mark to marketing but by minimizing charge offs on the basis of--one would guess-- irrelevant historical data, illusory good trends in the housing market , and absurdly optimistic guesses as to upcoming economic conditions.
I don't follow links (whether to long articles or not) from people I don't trust. Like people who won't sign in and post under ever-changing pseudonums. They could be malicious...just FYI.
Remember this the next time hartal nobody posts "lovingly" about his children:
"Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to sceptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial - notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."
press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
To respectfully disagree with No One (and without citing a source who is citing another source), I don't think Wells is playing a smoke and mirrors game. If they are, so are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, both of whom are on the upswing, with Goldman already in position to return all of their TARP bailout. Even on a day when the market was down, almost all bank stocks were up.
I don't know what interest rates the U.S. Gov is charging, but since 86% of the TARP money is a loan, not a gift, it must either a) be offensive to the banks to accept government bailouts, b) the interest rate is scaring them into giving it back quickly (1% would scare most of these guys), c) they don't think they can survive a close scrutiny of their books by the U.S. Gov, or d) they really ARE solvent. Probably a combo, but I'm leaning toward "d", what with my mindless optimism and all. I don;t think the record profits are due to bailout money as Michael was implying (but I'm so glad to see him back) but rather due to even more aggressive mortgage retailing.
Wall Street isn't the Whole economy, you know. There are already many signs of economic recovery, just no job creation yet as such. That is usually the final sign of a recovery, not the initial one.
I also don't believe the trends in mortgages and other loans to be illusory. I think lenders are more aggressive now than they ever were in the days of the CRA and other boom times. Have any of you seen the current ads from car dealers offering the first two months free, absurdly low interest rates, and most significantly: a promise to 'forgive' loan defaults in such a way as to not ruin a customer's credit rating (even from such upscale retailers as BMW). I have never seen generosity like that before. Of course, for GM, the writing is most likely on the wall, and you might expect fire sale tactics from them, but not from everyone.
Sorry for the length...
WV: wordisen
Right qua that's why I have said so little about my fathering. Don't know who else qua is. Has anybody else figured it out? Most of what I said were things about my older child, not about me. So I am not asking anyone to trust my sincerity, but the quote suggests that everyone's gestures at sincerity should be put under suspicion, so I don't see why the passage was directed at me. But a strange hostile reply as was Suzagoob's.
WT, you certainly may be right. I hope that you are. I just note that Krugman's skepticism seems to be based not on questions about profits from new loans but on questions about whether the banks are hiding charge offs. And why would they be doing so? He even toys with the idea that they don't want fear of their insolvency to spread at a time when there is a call for radical regulation and even nationalization. As that has something of the flavor of conspiracy theory, I can certainly understand your position.
So Krugman may be wrong, and he may also be wrong that we'll see a temporary inventory bounce in the real economy before another downturn.
Here's hoping that he is, and you are right.
"Like people who won't sign in and post under ever-changing pseudonums."
Just for the record. I had only signed here under one name until that name was hijacked by someone else with the goading of the host of this list. At that point I started using this name. So I think "ever changing" is a false description. Moreover, 'mindful life' is also a pseudonym.
"He even toys with the idea that they don't want fear of their insolvency to spread at a time when there is a call for radical regulation and even nationalization." - No One
Actually, I agree with Krugman (and you) on this, it's not a conspiracy theory. If all the banks in line for TARP were to allow the light of day to shine on their books, some would have to fall. In a real, not a manipulated, free market, some would HAVE to fail. It puzzles me that GM's failure is taken as a given, and (fill-in-name-with-insolvent-bank-here) isn't allowed to fail. GM is responsible for countless jobs all over the country, and indeed the world. Where by comparison, Wall Street firms hire very few people. Saving jobs should be the Government's priority here. It should also be the Fed's, but we all know what their top priority is. Both McCain and Obama accepted hefty campaign contributions from folks like AIG, if you're looking for conspiracy theories...
And then of course that mastermind Summers has had lucrative connections with the hedge funds and investment banks--not with industrial corporate America-- strengthens the conspiracy theories that we are suffering through a naked dictatorship of finance capital, as lefty may put it. And I am sure that those CEOs would like to get out from under the TARP money and its restrictions on bonuses and its standards of accounting.
who is anyone?
hartal/nobody: I meant to object to what I perceived as hostility to ML, in your tail end line at the end of a comment about how suzagood might want to skip a long (presumably complicated) article.
This blog attracts a pretty interesting variety of people. Some are clear and straightforward; some are not. Most, from time to time, in the course of trying to respond coherently to our host's posts get "sincere" about something. Their oldest child, their finest moment, their favorite guitar, their cherished pet -- who cares. There's room enough. I just didn't like the hostility.
Ugh, don't get me started on Summers. If I'd wanted a cabinet full of old Clinton hacks, i would've voted for Hillary...oh yeah, wait a minute... ;-)
WV: honswar
Suza's reply was only as hostile as the insult that precipitated it.
The author has some interesting and useful points, but I think he's wrong about the root of the problem. In describing the three failures of U.S. society, he reminds me of Father Karras, who described several different personalities that manifested themselves in Regan, and who was told by Father Merrin, "There is only one." The problem is narcissism, and it is epidemic in all levels of U.S. society. The author hints at this problem at the end of the article, when he talks about people putting their own interests above the greater good, but doesn't specifically call it out as the underlying problem.
DSG
Precisely.
As I posted before.
"There is only one"
cmon people I wasn't being hostile to suzagoob; she had said that she does not read my long posts, so I was just trying to be considerate by telling her that the link was to a very long piece so she wouldn't bother copying and pasting it. And this was her very hostile response:" I don't follow links (whether to long articles or not) from people I don't trust. Like people who won't sign in and post under ever-changing pseudonums. They could be malicious...just FYI."
Seems pretty excessive to me; and then qua who still continues identify her or himself in (negative) relation to me also seemed pretty hostile to focus a critique of sincerity on me.
To dsgonzale6. Mahbubani is focused on individualism more than narcissism. perhaps you're right that he should have been focused on the latter. As interesting and important as his criticisms of the US are, I find him an insufferable champion of anything and everything the Chinese state does.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fagese
heh.
no one - no one believes that you weren't trying to take a swipe at me with the long post comment. But you're right - I won't copy and paste ANY link of yours because I know it's going to support whatever argument you propose - what's the point?
Now, I have obviously googled when you sometimes suggest a certain search, so don't be a snot.
OK you don't believe what I said--I was not offending to intend but to be courteous to you. Moving on then I find this support for WT in today's WSJ. Evan Newmark:
'For the non-believers, these circumstances seem too convenient. Here was the analyst from Friedman Billings Ramsey, “Based on everything we know about credit deterioration, we are skeptical…under-provisioning may come back to haunt Wells Fargo in later quarters.”
But what if the Wells Fargo’s results, in fact, hold true?
Think about it.
What are the odds of Wells Fargo Chairman Dick Kovacevich, CEO John Stumpf and CFO Howard Atkins engaging in aggressive accounting at this point in the crisis? Do they want to spend the rest of their lives fighting class action lawsuits? That’s what you would have to think if you believe that Wells Fargo is hyping its earnings or recklessly underreserving for loan losses.
And I have a hard time buying that.
Isn’t it just possible that business is very good for Wells Fargo? That cheap money from the Fed and fewer competing banks have given the big boys like Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan a license to print profits, especially as the economy recovers?
Isn’t it just possible that a bank is simply telling the truth?'
offending to intend should have been intending to offend. Off to work.
I thought "offending to intend" was kind of clever.
Maybe it's just a matter of tone. I should take my own advice and lighten up.
One should never underestimate the power of apologies and the benefit of the doubt, particularly the benefit of the doubt.
So often, despite our best intentions, the things we say or do suffer from ambiguity, and how they are perceived will vary depending on how others interpret our intent. If we enjoy the benefit of the doubt, which is earned as a result of past experience, people are more likely to interpret our ambiguous statements as benign rather than malicious in intent.
One way to build up a reserve of the benefit of the doubt is to take responsibility for one's ambiguous statements through an apology. Rather than argue with the listener in an attempt to justify your interpretation of your ambiguous statement, apologize for failing to be clear--this can help persuade the other person to give you the benefit of the doubt the next time.
Ultimately, the goal of fostering these behaviors is to further thoughtful civil discussion, which, in my view, is the best means of developing and disseminating ideas. "Flaming" tends to incite too much emotion to have a thoughtful discussion.
Now, you might say, "But DSG, you're no stranger to flaming, isn't that hypocritical?" Well, not really. Some people, in my opinion, will never be able to have a civil discussion, for a variety of reasons. I believe these folks can be identified by their angry and vapid comments. All they recognize is force, and that's what I give them in my comments. People whose comments reveal thoughtfulness generally receive respect from me, even if we disagree.
As for Mahbubani's article, it clearly viewed individualism in a negative light. It figures that he's a fan of China, as China is culturally a more communitarian rather than an individualist society. But as I said, I think he missed the point. It's not individualism that's the problem here, it's narcissism, which is not individualism but a malignant variant. Personally, I think we should not dismiss individualism or collectivism out of hand; human nature encompasses both traits, so an answer to a particular problem may lie in one or the other approach, depending on the nature of the problem.
Off-Topic: saw a fantastic movie this weekend called Gomorrah - highly recommend it. Wow.
Also off topic, the EFC Act -- the card check bill -- is in trouble, apparently. Arlen Specter was one republican whose support the unions hoped to have (big labor has helped him significantly in the past when the right wingers have come after him). But Specter's against it. Dianne Feinstein, an early supporter of the bill, has said she can no longer support it in its current form. And then there are those moderate democrats in the Senate trying to use the debate to showcase for the folks back home how conservative they really are.
Also, I hear that the big money behind the anti-card-check-bill campaign is also preparing for legal challenges to the law if it passes. I can picture some law firm with an impeccable anti-union pedigree (Littler Mendelson in SF is closest to home) pursuing such a case for an association of corporate interests. ("Freedom of contract," anyone? Lochner rising from the dead? With the current Court, who knows.)
In the Mahbubani article he hints that no comparison between the U.S. and Chinese bailouts has been made because their plan is so much sounder than ours that a comparison would make the U.S. look bad. In reality, such a comparison is futile, unless the U.S. were to abolish Unions, fix wages and prices, and control the value of currency through Government decree rather than market forces. Since we don't have those elements in the U.S., our plan has to perforce look different.
---
Xoot: To me, Feinstein has always been a Dem in name only, so her position on the EFC Act doesn't surprise me. The only thing she likes better than atavistic political stances is to pose with firearms...
WT, I think you're missing Mahbubani's point. Why shouldn't we compare what spending the Chinese govt will finance with deficit spending with what we are financing with deficit spending? I don't see how the differences to which you are pointing are relevant. If our journalists and academics have not made the comparison, perhaps that does suggest hubris. After all, we invented Keynesianianism and the New Deal: how could they possibly do it better?
*
It could be that dsgonzale6's criticism of narcissism is implicit in Mahbubani's critiicsm. Is the problem that he did not use the word 'narcissism" or that he did not criticize it. At any rate, group think and irresponsibility are a worthy objects of critique.
*
If Obama does not have a filibuster proof majority for the ECFA, then the question becomes whether he will be using the available tools to beat back the filibuster, e.g. the reconciliation process or hardball against the Republicans and the equivocating Democrats. My guess is that once the economy has some bounce, he will be inspired by Solis to push through the EFCA. Unionization is a basic right, and the secret ballot system makes it exercise much too difficult.
*
Richard Epstein (author of the most tendentious treatise ever written against anti-discrimination laws) raises Constitutional questions about the EFCA. He says employers' free speech rights are violated and the binding arbitration is also unconstitutional. His case seems terribly weak. The Republicans will have to defeat this in the legislative process.
*
It was ML who said she did not read my long posts for no reason at all. Out of consideration I then said that the link was to something long. I said nothing about the piece being too complex for suzagoob. She then accused me of being untrustworthy and malicious! Quite an over-reaction. I then emphasize that I meant no harm or insult. She responds again by saying that she will never copy and paste anything that I send, and dsgonzale6 seems to think that I alone owe her an apology.
*
Krugman argues that JP Morgan's numbers are deceptive because the charge offs were put into December's numbers which which were not included in the first quarter or last year's forth quarter profit reports. Something like that.
*
Dinner time.
Yeah, Solis will inspire. She gave a speech in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago at rally devoted to the EFCA and she did not mention the bill, much less the fight, a single time. Her hands are tied. She'll do what the pragmatists tell her to do.
The arbitration clause in the card-check bill is the thing management side fears most, I think. All the sturm und drang over the secret ballot issue is PR deception. As it stands right now the bill provides for secret ballot elections if employees check that box on the card.
The management-side labor lawyer who told me about the plans to challenge the Constitutionality of the law also told me that opponents focus, among lawmakers, on a technical flaw: He says there is no mechanism for determining the "bargaining unit" of employees who should be eligible to check the card before they check it. Maybe the NLRB is supposed to do the associational equivalent of a hanging chad check after the fact. I'm too busy to research the details. But if that labor lawyer is right, there's a problem with the law and it sounds like one management will be able to exploit for purposes of delay. ("Yes, 51% of the employees they gave cards to checked the union box. But 5% of those employees are either supervisors or outside of the rational bargaining unit. We need a hearing (and an appeal to the DC NLRB, too.")
The right to free association is a basic right. (1st amendment.) The right to bargain collectively with an employer is not. Any group can form a "union." But it's federal (NLRA) or state (the agricultural labor laws in Calif., e.g.) statutes that confer the "right." The Taft Hartley Act gutted the NLRA and the reactionaries in congress were able to push that through specifically because unionization is NOT a basic right.
Obama the pragmatist may in the end help broker a deal that saves some part of the card-check bill. If so, the changes will help union organizers. But the mandatory arbitration portion of the law looks like a goner. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it's true.
But it's federal (NLRA) or state (the agricultural labor laws in Calif., e.g.) statutes that confer the "right" to force the employer to bargain.
Is how I meant to finish the sentence.
It's really amazing how courageous the first union organizers and members were -- going on strike with no laws to protect them, relying on the sympathy of people who refused to cross their picket lines, getting shot, etc. Insofar as there's "right" to unionize in the US, they created it.
Whether this challenge to the bargaining unit is used to challenge constitutionality of EFCA itself or just the results of a card check--your post runs both concerns together--I just don't see that as a major problem. It is, as you yourself aver, a technicality. To make the constitutional challenge Epstein points to the free speech rights of employers and rights against binding arbitration. One would have to be an expert in labor law, but Esptein's case seems terribly weak.
*
Again I don't think President Obama is going to exert pressure for passage of EFCA until there is some bounce in the economy. He'll use the political capital gained from an economic recovery to push through health care and labor rights reform. I would imagine that this is the strategy. There was also some mention that Obama will get free trade concessions from the Democrats for Republicans backing down on their opposition to the EFCA.
*
Not sure whether binding arbitration is a goner. Or the stiffer penalties against employers.
*
In saying that there is a right to form a union that can engage in collective bargaining and can,say, prevent the hiring of permanent replacement workers, I was not making a statement about what the actual state of US law. I was making a political statement about what rights those who work and those whose economic existence is often precarious should have. In that sense I think the EFCA would only give legal expression to the rights labor should in my opinion already have.
*
Love the moves towards Cuba and Iran. And it's hilarious that Secty of State Clinton has to execute President Obama's policy towards Iran.
From the LAT article on that recent Solis speech--no one (that's me) thought that she was backing off her support of the EFCA (so that means I think she was backing of the EFCA):
"We weren't disappointed with the speech at all," said Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Federation of Labor. "Labor now has a seat at the table, which we have not had for at least eight years; some would say longer."
Kent Wong, director of the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education, said Solis has to follow political protocol. She wouldn't be expected to speak in favor of any legislation before the president does.
The Free Choice measure would make it easier for workers to organize by allowing them to sign cards to join a union, instead of using a secret-ballot election. It would also allow workers and employers to request binding arbitration if they can't agree on a contract within 120 days after a union is formed. Proponents say this would speed up the resolution of disputes.
Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, said there's no doubt in anybody's mind that Solis is a proponent of the bill. She was one of the hundreds of co-authors in the last session.
"She didn't have to" say the words, he said Tuesday, standing near a rally for the Employee Free Choice Act on the north steps of the Capitol.
The hourlong rally was one of the key events of the two-day conference and lobbying event, which kicked off the labor federation's campaign to pass the legislation. Seminars included training sessions for unions on how to get out their message on the bill -- that it balances power in the workplace, restores organizing rights to workers and can help the economy by increasing the buying power of regular working people, among other benefits.
I read the LATimes article earlier today. Clearly, Solis is muzzled unless she's preaching to the choir.
The bargaining unit definition issue has nothing to do with Constitutional law. It's a problem for the card-check mechanism. The current system divides the election process into two segments that management can exploit for delay. First, who can vote? Often an election turns on the answer to that question. With a challenge, the local NLRB holds hearings to determine what the bargaining unit should be. (If nothing else, this raises the cost for the organizers.) Second, when the scope of the unit is clear, management begins its misinformation campaign, targeting what it has determined to be the susceptible employees.
If the cards checked under the card check system have to be validated for bargaining-unit determination purposes afterward, as the management side labor lawyer told me is the case, then there is a technical flaw in the law that will hurt organizers.
And, hartal/nobody, I did not understand your reference to "basic rights" to mean "rights labor should in [your] opinion already have." For some reason, I thought you meant "Unionization is a basic right" when (at 6:26 pm) you wrote "Unionization is a basic right." The right to collective bargaining (which is what we're talking about) is not a basic right at all. It's a weak remnant of a transitory right many people died and sacrificed to create. And now some politicians are trying to put some strength back into the right, because its weakness since the Taft Hartley Act passed has led to the wholesale de-unionization of US industry.
This is interesting. Will hartal's computer research skills create the illusion that he knows as much about union organizing as xootsit knows?
Once again, I recommend:
press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
I never said anything about "owing" anyone an apology. My point was that an apology is a practical way to avoid the never-ending argument about whether one has good intentions, and to create a reserve of goodwill.
Of course, if one is insincere about one's good intentions, then there's no point in apologizing, because it would put an end to one's true goal of being an irritant.
And once again, my point about the article was that the three particular problems the author criticized are all subsets of the more fundamental issue of narcissism. To say that groupthink and irresponsibility are worthy objects of criticism is beside the point; I could write an article saying that melting icebergs and changes in ocean currents are troubling environmental issues, but if I don't mention global warming, haven't I missed the forest for the trees?
So now dsgonzale6 suggests that I was insincere in pointing to the length of the piece so that suzagoob would not waste her time with it? I reiterate my intention, and then I am called malicious, untrustworthy, and insincere. But there's more: I am then blamed for not apologizing. There is a reason people on this list aren't or can't stay married. You are bonkers.
xootsuit, not everyone uses the concept of a basic human right the way that the lawyers do. The right to a safe and enriching environment in which to grow up is not considered in our legal system to be a basic right, but that does not mean it is not. A pretty elementary point.
*
is qua xootsuit by another name, lending support to xoot? Pretty sad if so, and now it seems to be so.
dsgonzale6, i would think that you want to show that what you are calling narcissism is not in fact criticized by Mahbubani as irresponsibility and Wild West individualism. He seems to favor non clinical terms or terms without strong clinical connotations, and there may be good reasons to avoid them in such political discourse.
You also did not answer the question: are you faulting him for not using the word 'narcissism' or for not criticizing the behavioral type.
You also have not proven that group think or national insularity or purblind claims to one's innocence are reducible to or an example of what you call narcissism.
And even if they are, it is important to specify and criticize the different consequences or manifestations of narcissism. Inveighing against it in the abstract may not give readers a sense of the problem.
I think you are a bit too narrowly focused on the word 'narcissism' to appreciate the complexity of the challengeS that Mahbubani is making.
A cursory familiarity with any volume of Chilton's underscores the apothegm 'you can't believe everything you read'.
Well played, TooSense. And shouldn't it be "enlightening" and not "elightening" at the top of this page? I'm just saying.
My union-organizing knowledge is pretty much limited to my own experience. That experience, by chance, gives me a good idea of what the card-check bill is designed to do. I'm now convinced that the mandatory arbitration provision is the most important piece of the Act. If that gets removed, the law will be a relatively weak improvement for labor. IMO.
Speaking of the economy, again, a friend of mine just sent me this link. Talk about your toxic assets.
http://tinyurl.com/c8p8r5
hartal/no one, I apologize for not being clearer about why I thought your statement might be ambiguous as to its good intentions and be perceived as insulting. Let's look at the statement in question:
"a pretty hard look at our political culture by an esteemed diplomat. Very long--not for suzagood."
Now, assuming that Suza is a dolt who is uninterested in reading anything long (though she actually specified that she was uninterested in checking out specific links posted by hartal/no one because she doesn't trust him--see my earlier remarks about "benefit of the doubt" as to how this works), had the sentence read, "a pretty hard look at our political culture by an esteemed diplomat. Very long", that should have been enough to warn Suza (assuming again that she was not interested in reading a long piece) that this article wasn't for her.
Instead, however, he goes on to call out her name, so not only does he specifically identify her as someone who can't be bothered to read long articles, he apparently assumes that she is so stupid that she wouldn't understand that this article wasn't her taste, notwithstanding his having said that it was a long piece, without specifically addressing her. I respectfully suggest that the statement in question is at least ambiguous as to its good intentions.
BTW, if we're all so bonkers, aren't you perverse to want to spend time with us, unless all you want to do is irritate us?
Re the diplomat's article, I think my criticism was clear and on target. If someone wants to specifically challenge my idea that narcissism is the root of the three problems cited by him and that he was remiss in addressing it, they can make that argument, and we can go from there. But your arguments that (a) I didn't prove that narcissism is the root, (b) I'm getting caught up in abstract issues and ignoring the real problems, (c) I wasn't clear whether I was criticizing him for not using the term or not raising the behavioral type, and (d) I am too narrowly focused on narcissism, are all, once again, either bogus arguments or beside the point.
God this is too funny! Xootsuit has completely lost it. I don't think he's even aware of his alter-ego, Qua Palimpsest.
WV-aunbea: Opie's heartless relative
Yogi, as usual your attempt to identify me with another blogger is absurd. (Remember when you were sure I was twinfan?)
Personally, I think a couple of people are using the palimpsest name. Can't say I care.
I would suggest that hartal/no one's non-rigorous use of the term "human right" is an example of the kind of loose thinking that leads to social strife, when uninformed, naive aspirations meet practical realities. The term "rights" has legal meaning, and ought not be applied willy nilly to whatever "good" one might favor.
You have the "right" to be silent.
Just not the ability.
dsg, hartal just made a mistake he can't own up to (much less discuss productively). He has the same problem with the Solis issue. hartal cannot reevaluate and adjust his initial position (from some weeks back), despite new evidence and information. Pretty soon, he'll take offense and start hurling off point insults.
Oh. I see the off point insults actually started early this morning. Sorry.
Speaking of rights, what prominent "intellectual" recently said this:
“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned.”
xoot, was that Jon Carroll?
Justice Clarence Thomas. from NYT.
It does inadvertently sound like Carroll, though, now that you mention it.
This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them
Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights
And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Know your rights
These are your rights
Know these rights
Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................
Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Finally then I will read you your rights
You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you
Listen to this
Run
The Clash/"Know Your Rights"
FH, the Clash always had a way with a political point. Great song.
WV: psycho
Nuff said.
wv: abalatio
(kinky mollusks)
"The term "rights" has legal meaning, and ought not be applied willy nilly to whatever "good" one might favor."
Well put, dsgonzale6. No one should ever refer again to a right to affordable health care or affordable clean water or to form a union that can bargain collectively or for a safe and enriching environment in which all children should have the opportunity to grow.
All those activists should shut up and let the lawyers tell them what their rights are.
And the Clash should never have never referred to "rights" in such a way.
And please no one ever refer to a right to have rights on the behalf of illegal aliens or illegal enemy combatants. Rights should only be used as practicing lawyers use it.
Now if not for the powers of group think on this list, is there anyone who actually agrees with what dsgonzale6 is saying
" But your arguments that (a) I didn't prove that narcissism is the root, (b) I'm getting caught up in abstract issues and ignoring the real problems, (c) I wasn't clear whether I was criticizing him for not using the term or not raising the behavioral type, and (d) I am too narrowly focused on narcissism, are all, once again, either bogus arguments or beside the point."
Sure if you say so, dsgonzale6. You can see how resounding the agreement was with your sniping at the Mahbubani piece.
Mr. hartal, I am incommensurably disappointed. I thought you had learned to acknowledge your negligent errors and move on. Instead, you fight on, making yourself look less and less educated as you go.
I wonder if any of us are likely to cross paths in real life? I imagine hartal living in a small apartment in Concord. Young C must live in Berkeley. Where else would a madman like him/her get by? If my guesses are even close -- we will never cross paths.
"I'm now convinced that the mandatory arbitration provision is the most important piece of the Act." Why do you say that, xootsuit? The point is not to make gnomic formulations but to enrich a conversation. That's just an assertion, not an argument, similar to the assertion that the appt of Solis who will oversee the enforcement of a great deal of the labor law that has been ignored for eight years is not as relatively important as the appts to the NRLB will prove to be.
By the way, to the extent that qua is now repeating points that TedSpe had earlier made, I am not guessing that qua is another one of his aliases.
Ah there it is again--the same creepy wondering about the residences of people whom you despise and the same empty assertions on behalf of the group against the dissident.
Got to agree. Qua Palimpsest is the biggest douchebag I've ever encountered on the internet. I assume it's xootsuit, but whatever, it's one nasty little spirochete.
Oh, Young C. Is the Berkeley Public Library open this late? We have now heard your douche witticism. Is the Young C word nearby? What intelligence!
Oh the Monster Movie fifty year old dude is losing it again. He needs to pick a fight with me, yet he is identifying himself in terms of me. What a loser!
Tedspe would not stoop to arguing with you two rodents. I am bored, however, so I do.
The fact that you both are now trying to gang up on poor moi, well, that speaks for itself, does it not, BF boys?
Quappy, I don't get your insult. Why would I be ashamed to be visiting the Berkeley library?
Well you bring political discussion into the toilet in the same way that TedSpe does. You know if it quacks and moves like a duck, then it may well be a duck.
This is weird. vaGina and xootsuit seem to have merged personalities. Another demon from the SF Gate blogs is placing its head on the chopping block.
No One, TedSpe is a political nitwit, but he's not sinister, nor is he as humorless as this thing.
Hand me my terrible swift sword Oh Lord!
I disagree about the sinister part. And it seems likely to me that qua and Ted Spe are aliases for the same person, whoever that is. But what is happening should be familiar. Xootsuit and dsgonzale6 are not being as decisive in argument against me as one would hope; at this point TedSpe/qua comes in to insult me violently in hopes of driving me from the list to protect the big guns, so invested is TedSpe/qua in preserving the self image of others as geniuses and quick wits. Seen it all before.
I doubt it Hartal. TedSpe is pretty much only interested in 50's monster movies. If I had to bet, it would say it's vaGina.
She already denied it. So did xootsuit and FH. No way it's WT or SG. Could be Michael but probably not. So that leaves TS. But who's woohoo? Maybe Gina.
hmmm. Nothing but troll talk among posters who refuse to register.
You boys should look into a joint registration. The BF boys. (Choose your photo carefully.)
My money is that one of these "personalities" is that raving lunatic, LaSalle.
And by the way. You're all so very boring these days, but if you're all interested in crossing paths, I would be more than happy to have all of you come meet at my place. Bring a sleeping bag and your ranch clothes. The goats will be more than willing to let you bunk with them.
Except LaSalle. He's not invited.
I refer back to my original point(s) about Mahbubani's arguments:
"The author has some interesting and useful points, but I think he's wrong about the root of the problem."
"And once again, my point about the article was that the three particular problems the author criticized are all subsets of the more fundamental issue of narcissism. [For hartal/no one to] say that groupthink and irresponsibility are worthy objects of criticism is beside the point; I could write an article saying that melting icebergs and changes in ocean currents are troubling environmental issues, but if I don't mention global warming, haven't I missed the forest for the trees?"
As I understood the article, the author was being critical about U.S. culture because, in his view, the three problems he noted could result in our failure as a society. My view is that if he really wanted to criticize something really problematic about U.S. culture, it would be our narcissism, which is at the root of the problems he highlights as being very serious and potentially failure-inducing.
The failure of anyone here to comment on my argument is not evidence of their lack of regard for my point. One could just as easily conclude that people don't want to take my side in an argument between the two of us because they know how arduous those conflicts can be.
or we just don't give a flying fuck about such a dry topic.
Could you just lay out how you derive groupthink from narcissism or a collective or national blindness to govt responsibility from narcissism which is a personal malady? Could you show that you mean something other by narcissism than what Mahbubani decried as Wild West individualism and a lack of responsibility? It just seems that you are sniping at the piece, and why no defense of your narrow limitation of the concept of rights to only what lawyers mean by it as if rights discourse used by activists all around the world is to be avoided at all costs? An absurd position.
ps Of course two or more people could be signing in as qua. I think that's what is happening.
"because they know how arduous those conflicts can be"
When I first saw that clause I wasn't sure if it was hartal bragging or dsg lamenting.
btw, hartal, I didn't append a long, boring self-indulgent back-up explication to my opinion about the card-check bill because I wasn't sure anyone was really interested. Looks like my hunch was right. Personally, I'm baffled by the opacity of the process right now. I would think the pro-bill folks would be publicizing the proposed changes bouncing around congress and clearly critiquing them. If anyone stumbles across a good summary or web page on the topic, please let me know. (I'm aware of the partisan pages. I haven't found one yet that has a comprehensive, up to date summary.)
I still don't know why you imply that binding arbitration poses a greater danger to employers than card check and stiffer penalties. Don't both unions and employers have all kinds of ways of delaying the arbitration? How many disputes go so long that binding arbitration would be imposed? The employer fronts are most vocal in opposition to the card check and the prospect of collective bargaining. In fact given the seeming toothlessness of the binding arbitration, there may be a good argument that this is exactly the part of the bill that labor should give up. Or maybe not. I just don't see your argument. I'll try to contact a lawyer whom I have known for a long time; she clerked for a Supreme Ct. Justice, and has a great interest in labor law.
Xoot: I am interested in the card-check bill, and have been reading your comments. I just don't know enough about it to comment in an informed way. Of course, that wouldn't stop some people...
http://tinyurl.com/c9l7co
To follow the card check debate, I have read the Heritage Foundation analysis, the criticism of RIchard Epstein, the AFL CIO website on the matter, the Labor Notes article by Jane Slaugther and above all the reporting of Steven Greenhouse. Don't know whether that counts as speaking out of one's ass, in WT's opinion.
From the language of the Senate Bill we can't tell what options employers have to impose delays once a dispute is referred to the arbitration board. Here's the language of the Bill:
"SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(h) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of establishing an initial agreement following certification or recognition, the provisions of subsection (d) shall be modified as follows:
`(1) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor organization that has been newly organized or certified as a representative as defined in section 9(a), or within such further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall meet and commence to bargain collectively and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement.
`(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.
`(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.'.
After I bumped into the management-side labor lawyer I mentioned, I dug in to do some research and found, to my surprise, that most of the good discussion pre-dates the congressional debate (and, thus, the currently proposed changes to the card-check bill). For example, this is interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/c9qa3p
The labor lawyer I talked to specializes in an industry that has been unionized for eons. As a result, his interest in the bill is tangential.
The bill is designed to make collective bargaining rights easier to obtain in shops that are not presently organized. The modification to the election mechanism will speed the certification process. It may not be necessary to abolish the secret election to achieve the timing improvement. Once a union is certified, the threat of mandatory arbitration will transform the process of collective bargaining itself. Management will have a strong incentive to negotiate a contract it can live with, rather than let an arbitration panel impose one. The union, on the other hand, will not be terrorized by the threat of long drawn out negotiations (a common tactic in first-contract situations).
That mandatory mediation/arbitration provision must terrify big employers who presently are not unionized. That includes many high-tech firms, some of which currently pay workers pretty well, and huge nationwide operations that grew big during the anti-union heyday of the 80s and 90s and that pay very little to their workers -- WalMart, e.g. (I know at one time WalMart had a policy of closing down stores that successfully unionized.) My guess is that the average arbitration panel would not allow a unionized WalMart store (or group of stores) to pay poverty level wages.
I hope this gives some sense why I consider the mandatory arbitration provision to be the heart of the card-check bill. And, of course, I apologize for the long, rambling, essentially amateur analysis.
Well, at least you've asked an honest question about narcissism. In addition to being an individual illness, narcissism can be a cultural/national malady:
http://tinyurl.com/c5hzu3
As for rights, it's clear that you've intentionally misstated my position in your effort to assert a triumph over me, hollow though it may be. You'll get a response when you behave honestly.
But why would employers be terrorized by the binding arbitration clause if they will have kinds of ways of getting delays from the arbitration board, and even to get there the dispute would have had to been referred to a mediator, and there could be delays at that level too. Most unions will have been broken by then, no? Again if the possibility for delays is great--plus we have not even mentioned the fact that the employers are not without say in who is chosen to mediate and arbitrate-- I think the opposite to what you say may be true: the binding arbitration is exactly what labor should give up in a compromise. At any rate, I am not convinced by your argument that it's the most important of the three provisions. Card check and stiffer penalties seem to me more important.
Your response makes no sense, hartal. The passage from the bill you cut and pasted onto this blog shows why there will be scant opportunity under the current bill to create delays in the arbitration process. And you really should look into who would enforce these penalties you think will be so important. (Hint: it won't be Ms. Solis.) Anyway, this discussion went about the way I expected it to go. Better luck next time.
I wouldn't be so confident that there will be scant opportunities to create delays at the levels of the mediation and certainly arbitration. I don't see where the legislation gives a deadline to the arbitration board (I quote the relevant part below). Remarkable that a lawyer is so certain delays will be hard to come by! Don't think you have made a good case that binding arbitration is more important than card check and penalties, though that may be true.
(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.'.
I'm not trying to make a case, hartal. If I were, I would spend a bunch of time preparing it. (In any event, even without researching deeply, I would win this debate now because you've shown nothing.) But that's not the point. I just offered my present opinion based on what I know now, and I'm keeping an open mind. I'm mainly concerned with the proposed amendments to the bill under consideration in congress now, and all I can find is vague reference in the press -- no detail. Just what are they thinking of butchering?
One last note and then back to my real work. The card check bill presently relies on the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for the mandatory arbitration process. It has been around a long time. This is from their procedures manual:
1404.14 Decision and Award
(a) Arbitrators shall make awards no later than 60 days from the date of the closing of the record as determined by the arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties or specified by the collective bargaining agreement or law. However, failure to meet the 60-day deadline will not invalidate the process or award. A failure to render timely awards reflects upon the performance of an arbitrator and may lead to removal from the Roster.
(b) The parties should inform the OAS whenever a decision is unduly delayed. The arbitrator shall notify the OAS if and when the arbitrator (1) cannot schedule, hear, and render decisions promptly, or (2) learns a dispute has been settled by the parties prior to the decision.
OK don't see how what you quote shows little room for delays at arbitration level. But I remember reading a book by William Hobarth (? Prof of Law at UT Austin, I think). Read it many years ago, but I do think many of the early twentieth century labor organizers actually hated the idea of binding arbitration because they thought that the state would get everyone back to work on terms favorable to the employer. Was LaGuardia a famous case? Read the book ten years ago. We've come a long way now that it is labor that wants binding arbitration to make sure the employers bargain in good faith. But the Hobarth book left me with some skepticism of binding arbitration. And if it's toothless anyway due to the possibility of delays, and likely to be biased to employers once rulings are made, then why is it the one thing labor should not give up?
Of course you may be right. But I am not yet convinced.
There is a sixty day deadline after the closing of the record but how long can the arbitrator keep the record open?
This is the really interesting book that I read a decade or so ago. I need to find the box I put it into
Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement
by William E. Forbath
Who knows? He may see things exactly as xootsuit does.
Found this funny and somewhat appropriate - NSFW
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1907543
Pretty funny!
Slightly related:
Actual scene on an Oakland sidewalk yesterday near Lake Merritt. A teenage boy in saggy baggy jeans, a backwards baseball cap and a Sarah Palin t-shirt was walking with friends when a very buttoned down looking middle-aged woman approached him and asked to take his picture.
Why? he asked suspiciously.
Sarah Palin is a friend of mine. I live in Alaska. I want to show her that she even has supporters here in liberal California.
I don't wear the shirt because I like Sarah Palin, the kid said. I just wear it to piss people off.
The woman was too busy aiming her cell phone camera to hear him.
oh another thing. Consider that even if an arbitrator gives the parties a two-year agreement, what ensures that the union will be able to negotiate on its own after the first contract expires? that suggests xootsuit's pt may be even stronger The
EFCA even if passed in its current form may not do much for labor if there no real way to make employers bargain in good faith after the 1st contract!
Jeez, hartal, you're just guessing, now. The first contract's always the tough -- a unique hurdle. That's organizing 101. Contract renewal, renegotiation and, of course, strikes, are all more specialized subjects of study.
Well I'm just trying to fill in your argument about the centrality of binding arbitration. I don't see that you have justified it--the penalties look great to me as does the card check. Those are the things that seem to me not worth compromising on. You also don't consider cases in which a union could extract more from an employer by striking or threatening to strike than an arbitrator would be likely to give it. In other words, you made a claim; it's interesting; I'm trying to evaluate it. I don't see clear reasoning behind your claim yet. And as you can see I am willing to help support it, but there are counter arguments too.
Right. These days a lot of workers without the protection of collective bargaining agreements (and the NLRA) go on strike. You bet. Better dig into that box of yours, find a labor law book.
Are the new penalties gonna scare WalMart? No. But the idea of contracts calling for it to pay livable wages sure will.
TooSense - did you see where Jon Carroll is interviewing Rita Moreno? Dude, you totally have to go to this!!!
'Wh-'
'-oah!'
'Whoah!'
'Whoah!'
Well it's still not clear to me that labor cannot give up binding arbitration for the ECFA to mean something. Many reasons: it's not clear how much this weakens the legislation from labor's perspective since binding arbitration is only for first contracts.
Second, that suggests that there may be need for another mechanism to ensure that management bargains in good faith. That mechanism could be binding arbitration for all disputes or it could be something else. And if there is just such a mechanism, then binding arbitration becomes more dispensable, and labor gets to fend off the charge that it is asking economically illiterate judges to run companies. That may help get EFCA passed, though there is a good argument to wait until Specter is dislodged, so great compromises don't have to be made. At any rate, the arguments for the putative democracy of secret ballots won't last, and I suspect that the charge that EFCA gives judges/arbitrators too much power will be more troublesome. So it could be that you're exactly wrong here: this is the thing to compromise on and find some substitute for. Or you could be right if there is no other mechanism and if there is no other way to force good faith bargaining.
Third, it's possible that labor is becoming restive again--think of that sit in strike just before Obama took power, and the popular anger about the UAW being forced to make concessions while the AIG executives were allowed to keep their bonuses--and that in some cases binding arbitration will result in a worse outcome than a strike would have. I grant that it seems unlikely now but there have been periods in American history that the injunction was a weapon against labor, and if the balance of forces change as a result of rising populism, then binding arbitration could at times disfavor labor. I know that my point is speculative and perhaps unlikely, but things can take surprising turns, and we are living in surprising times.
Fourth, given Wal Mart's surprisingly thin profit margins--that according to Jason Furman--an arbitrator would not give labor much at all, and again that contract would only last two years, anyway.
Nothing's clear to you hartal unless you cut and paste it yourself. Then you claim it's clear. Your supposition is weak; your point is to undermine, not examine.
Maybe, just maybe, accidentally, you've learned the importance of the DC NLRB in all of this (particularly at this moment -- with so many open seats on it). And maybe you've learned something about the thoroughly tangential role Ms. Solis is playing and will play in all of this.
One thing for sure, given the vast majority (what, some 80%?) of workers in the US who are not unionized, who do not have collective bargaining rights and on site advocates watching out for safety problems, etc., the Secretary of Labor has other work cut out for her.
Adios, brother. Keep your search engine roaring along on the road to solidarity.
ok, maybe DSG or Xootsuit can explain why Verizon filed a lawsuit against John Does 1 - 100 for cutting their cables last week?
What is the purpose of filing a lawsuit before the police even know who did it?
This is hilarious. You are pretending that you are critiquing me when you write:
"One thing for sure, given the vast majority (what, some 80%?) of workers in the US who are not unionized, who do not have collective bargaining rights and on site advocates watching out for safety problems, etc., the Secretary of Labor has other work cut out for her."
Well yes indeed. That is what I have been saying all along!
The importance of Solis' appointment is in the enforcement of our labor laws. We have had widespread abuses in regards to sexual harassment, unpaid and forced overtime, misclassification of common law employees, shrinkage preventing lock ins, union corruption, and myriad other abuses documented by Steven Greenhouse.
Yes indeed the overwhelming majority of workers in the private sector are not unionized and will likely remain outside unions even with EFCA (card checks and binding arbitration don't seem to have done a whole lot for workers in Canada). So one really important concern remains the vigorous enforcement of labor laws.
To say that her appointment is not as relatively important as the NRLB appointment is daft. No one has said this except for you.
And you're not really supporting your thesis that without binding arbitration the EFCA isn't or can't be made into significant victory for labor.
First, it's possible that even with it, it's not going to mean much.
Second, it's possible that binding arbitration won't always favor labor if things take a surprising turn as they did with the labor unrest in the 30s.
Third, it's possible that there are better ways to get management to bargain in good faith that won't create huge propaganda problems for labor. For example, there could be judgements as to the bad faith of management and steep penalties for that in the EFCA.
You made an assertion. I am discussing it. It seems that you think people are just supposed to accept your judgement of the relative importance of things since you were part of union campaign thirty or so years ago and since you had a conversation about the not obviously crucial matter of a bargaining unit with a pro management labor lawyer.
But i don't accept your authority. You have admitted to being amateurish in this discussion.
You made an assertion. It may well be true, but that can't be intuited. The assertion requires evidence and argument to be accepted. This is how discussion works.
It seems that you are accustomed to people nodding their heads in agreement just because that is what people sometimes do with crazy people like you.
"crazy people"?
You bet, hartal, you bet. You're really interested in "discussion." Because of the way I review comments (I shoot straight to end, and then work back up), I only read the end of your most recent screed. That's all I'll read. Adios.
Suza, I will look at the stories about that Verizon lawsuit (I hadn't heard of it). But the first thing that comes to my mind is discovery -- once you file a lawsuit, you have the subpoena power of the court to demand relevant information from everyone who has it.
I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but I am astounded at the lack of information publicized about that "vandalism." The neighborhoods around Apple Computer's HQ and Google's HQ were not blacked out. (I know people who live there.) Just about the rest of the high tech capital, from Palo Alto to Santa Cruz, was. Coincidence perhaps; or the vandals knew exactly what they were doing. The government investigators know a lot more than they have revealed publicly. Maybe Verizon is not pleased with the government's approach to the investigation?
Of course, there's no normal time pressure to file the lawsuit. Verizon normally would have at least two years to file a lawsuit for tort damages.
Finally, the CWA (Communications Workers of America) are picketing AT&T presently because contract renewal negotiations are not going well. I would be astounded if the CWA was behind the vandalism. But -- who knows?
Actually, it looks like CWA and AT&T finalized their negotiations before the vandals shut the phones down. So that angle's not so likely.
" I would be astounded if the CWA was behind the vandalism. But -- who knows?"
Ohmygod, let me just get this straight before we draw out the very disturbing implications. Did xootsuit just actually insinuate that the CWA itself may be behind the act?
Let's see how powerful the group think on this list is.
Maybe you see further than I can see,
or maybe things just look differently
Maybe I'm nothing but a shadow on the wall
Maybe love's a tomb where you dance at night
Maybe sanctuary is an electric light
I get so tired it's like I'm another man,
and everything I see seems so underhanded
I don't see anything that I want,
and I don't see anything that I want
Image, object, & illusion
go down to the corner
where none of the faces fit a human form,
where nothing I see there isn't deformed,
where in a secret lab works a Doctor Moreau,
and no private eye's gotta tell me it's a long goodbye
I get so tired it's like I'm another man,
and everything I see seems so underhanded
I don't see anything that I want,
and I don't see anything that I want
Looking into the heart of darkness
Pere Ubu/"Heart Of Darkness"
Apparently, if an idea doesn't occur to hartal/no one, it's per se ludicrous (in his eyes) and must be the result of some pathology. The television news items that I saw/heard on the morning of the incident reported that the union had issued a statement saying that it was cooperating with the company in the investigation. Groupthink or not, the union's actions indicate a recognition that some people might believe they had some involvement in the vandalism, and took this action to preempt the issue.
Suza, I agree with Xoot regarding the subpoena issue, plus it's definitely a more aggressive posture.
wv: whistl
I shouldn't sully the purity of this thread with an off-topic comment, but I'm annoyed that a word I thought I invented is already in use. Whistlehead I mean it to be a stupid person, but according to TUD: it means a blowjob given by someone with no teeth. Maybe it's not so off-topic after all.
I got 135 votes on a story about Julia Butterfly Hill, but I'm editing the comment after "inventing" a word that starts with the letter W. For the record; Bongo Shaftsbury meant to say, "Oh what a wicked web the whistleheads weave" in Madame Butterfly's defense.
DSG's WV- Whistl: A whistle who gets ehead
Jeez, dsgonzale6, I really expected better.
Let's look at your statement:
"The television news items that I saw/heard on the morning of the incident reported that the union had issued a statement saying that it was cooperating with the company in the investigation. Groupthink or not, the union's actions indicate a recognition that some people might believe they had some involvement in the vandalism, and took this action to preempt the issue."
Now what is the reference for the pronoun "they"? It could be "some people" but that would make no sense. And who these "some people" are is not clear. So the referent for the "they" is the collective noun "the union"--we'll ignore the grammatical mistake that "union" is singular and "they" plural.
So you dsgonzale6 are saying, just as xootsuit insinuated, that the union itself--not a few wackos who may or may not be union members--might have had some involvement in the vandalism.
This is defamation.
What union men! What precise use of language by our lawyers in an incident that demands precision as we may be talking about something that qualifies as actual terrorism!
Actually I had reason to expect better because what you say is infinitely better than what xootsuit said. Xootsuit actually insinuated that the union itself may have been involved. That's defamation. You however only said that some people may believe that the union was involved and that the union took immediately countered the defamatory charge. Quite right. But that's not what xootsuit said.
Again this is what he wrote:
"I would be astounded if the CWA was behind the vandalism. But -- who knows?"
So the union man that is xootsuit who is actually a poisonous gas bag intimates that the CWA itself could have been behind the vandalism or terrorism.
One should simply not hint at that, and to your credit, dsgonzale6, you did not.
But why are you not criticizing xootsuit's language.
zzzzzzzz
Of course you don't deny what I am saying. You're not that far lost, dsgonzale6. But groupthink prevents you from saying the obvious.
A lawyer, of all people, should know to be careful about making a defamatory insinuation about any actor (individual or institution) in regards to what will quite possibly be classified as terrorism. It would have been bad enough to insinuate responsibility for vandalism but in a post 9-11 world things are much more serious.
Well xootsuit certainly does not have the habits of responsible thinking. It'll be interesting to see whether he reappears under the same old screen name.
Gateway Coal Co. v. UMW, 414 US 368 [1974]
Does this case suggest that the binding arbitration clause in the EFCA will make it much more likely that strikes will be considered an unfair labor practice. Maybe the tradeoff is good for labor, but there may be a trade off here that needs to be acknowledged.
dsg -- members of the CWA would have the technical knowledge (and the tools) to locate and saw through specific cables. So would other people. The CWA has to be concerned about public perception.
Unions are associations of individuals. If a member does something unlawful in a stupid attempt to assist the union, the union can get tarred. Unlike a corporation, the union can't just "fire" the member. Indeed, under many circumstances the union will have an obligation to defend the member. Anyone who has ever been active in a union would know this stuff.
I know of one guy who put up a website 1 1/2 years ago "on behalf" of three locals of a national union. He posted information about a particular corporation. A governmental agency went berzerk, filed lawsuits, etc., etc., claiming the disclosure violated privacy laws, HIPAA, and more. The three union locals got blamed for the fiasco, even though it was really just one guy who did it all. (Moreover, the feds investigated the HIPAA charges and summarily deterined no violation had occurred.)
Way over on the other side of the spectrum, I know a law professor (no doubt retired now) who back in the 60s quit his position as general counsel for a huge national union in large part because the national officers refused to intervene to stop violence some of its locals were inflicting on a union competing for membership.
In between these extremes, all sorts of complicated situations arise. Again, anyone who has ever been involved in organized labor would know.
"members of the CWA would have the technical knowledge (and the tools) to locate and saw through specific cables. So would other people. The CWA has to be concerned about public perception."
Sure but to suggest that the CWA itself may have been responsible is defamatory and malicious. And of course the CWA has to concerned about public perception, especially when the blogosphere is populated by poisonous gas bags posing as union men insinuating that the CWA carried out an act of probable terrorism.
IN defending a wildly irresponsible comment, xootsuit writes
"Way over on the other side of the spectrum, I know a law professor (no doubt retired now) who back in the 60s quit his position as general counsel for a huge national union in large part because the national officers refused to intervene to stop violence some of its locals were inflicting on a union competing for membership."
So is the insinuation here that the CWA leadership may have given a wink, wink to those locals willing to carry out terrorism against ATT? Well again xootsuit's insinuations are defamatory and malicious, and reflect that he has no sense of responsibility.
WT -- I'm not familiar with that Pere Ubu song. I'll have to check it out. ;)
hartal/no one, I'm not particularly interested in or concerned about what you have to say about the legal implications of what either Xoot or I has to say. You're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, and so am I.
Since unions are made up of the same corrupt people who also work in big business or government, I personally have no problem considering that there might have been one or two (all it would really take) malicious off-the-ranchers to screw up a cable line or two.
I think it might literally be criminal for the police NOT to consider that a potential lead to follow. No one is exempt.
Exactly and well put, ML--possibly off-the-ranchers, not the CWA itself, as xootsuit put it. I know that many factors make it impossible for you to say that you agree with ML, but you do.
And dsgonzale6, what about the ethical implications of xootsuit's terribly worded insinuation?
Oh, this call for sanctions against a "terribly worded" post, this is incommensurably amusing.
as far as I can tell Xoot and I said pretty much the same thing. Individuals acting on their own but still associated with the union - which can makes the union's cooperation with an investigation vital.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
wv: horagote
Moi? ;)
Jimmy Hoffa. Does the name ring any bells?
dsg -- the law professor I mentioned? Legend had it that during the dispute over the violence he hung a UFW flag on the wall of his office in the union's HQ.
Speaking of unions: I work in a large business park, that happens to be owned by my employers. One of our tenants has people picketing on Friday mornings. Now, normally when I pass a picket in my car, I honk my support. However, in this economy, I find my principles taking a back seat to my desire to keep my job. For some reason, I don't think that my employer would appreciate me showing support for folks who are picketing one of their tenants...
Well, this is turning into a productive lunch break. Speaking of old law professors, check this out from Prof. Gould (he actually cites the other I spoke of). Moderate but masterful:
43 U.S.F. L. Rev. 291, 300 & 324-28 (2008)
http://tinyurl.com/cxbmr5
No you (ML) referred to individuals acting alone--that is the most that could be reasonably entertained at this point; xootsuit however insinuated the possibility of the responsibility of the CWA itself. Big difference. Your wording is excellent while the lawyer's is scandalous. And we all know the history of how the charges of vandalism and terrorism have been used to discredit the unions and their leaders.
*
Interestingly Gould insists that there should not be a date certain for binding arbitration; that seems to create all kinds of problems for how the dates for commencement and closure of the case will be set. Just skimmed it so far so I'll check the footnotes to see how he elaborates.
Interesting article. It will require more time to read in full. I have to admit that labor law was never my favorite subject matter. Then again, I haven't really been offering my opinion about it, either.
wv: vorthoo
(the sound that comes out of a vortex)
"I'll check the footnotes to see how he elaborates"
Then I'll plagiarize shamelessly and pretend I know things I don't!
I can't believe what I'm reading. This 'no one' poster keeps repeating that the CWA is responsible for terrorism?!
Sheriff: When did you shoot him?
Bill: What?
Sheriff: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
Bill: I shot the clerk?
Sheriff: Yes, when did you shoot him?
Bill: I shot the clerk?
Officer: Dean, we need you out here!
Sheriff: I’m right in the middle of a damn confession here!
Oh how sad to be so cowardly and reactive that all you can do is identify yourself in terms of someone you hate and then hope to rile him up enough to recognize your poor pathetic self, mentally shriveled as a result of too many drugs and monster movies into your fifties.
You're in such a great position to evaluate what I understand and know and what I have plagiarized! Look at all the insightful things you have written qua. People must see that you are a person of real discernment.
And you have google, you hate me. Why don't you out me the way dsgonzale6 oh-so-gently outed xootsuit for trying to pass off an actual Johnny Carson joke off as his own.
Well I know that my negative comments is what you needed to hear from me, and I have obliged you. You know that what I say is true but as long as I am saying it you can at least imagine for a moment that maybe it's not, and you can imagine that you're living a happy parallel life. I am sorry for how things have turned out for you, and I hope that you remain on the road to recovery.
So ML did you agree that there is an important difference, to your favor, between how you worded things and how xootsuit worded them? It seems to me that you appreciate the lawyer's precision in language, so important in the public discussion of a case such as this one, better than the self-proclaimed lawyer.
*
And did people actually agree with dsgonzale6's legalistic understanding of rights?
I can say I have the right to be left alone, but as long as nameless keeps trying to bug me, my "right" isn't worth much, is it?
xootsuit said...
I would be astounded if the CWA was behind the vandalism. But -- who knows?April 16, 2009 8:13 PM
xootsuit said...
Actually, it looks like CWA and AT&T finalized their negotiations before the vandals shut the phones down. So that angle's not so likely.
April 16, 2009 8:31 PM
-- I can't see anything but precisely stated acknowledgment of shock and doubt of claims of an unlikely scenario. I'm sure all the other posters here got it when it was stated, but it does take some a while to catch up.
I doubt very much .... committed that terrorist act but who knows? Oh well someone finally responded to .....as if he does not a tin hat, so it makes that not so likely. But who knows?
Responsible people don't talk that way (nor do they threaten people over the internet with a clubbing over the head with baseball bat). A lawyer should know better.
Oh I wasn't asking you to respond, dsgonzale6. I was interested whether anyone other than you shares your legalistic understanding of how we should talk about rights. I think FH already signaled that she does not share your understanding.
I would be astounded if no one knew what they were talking about. But... who knows? Still, that angle's not likely.
Umm, TS, the standards are different when one's implication in terrorism is at stake as opposed to simple internet dissing. Responsible people understand that.
How do whisper campaigns begin? How have insinuations of vandalism and terrorism been used to crush workers' organizations?
A person with an ounce of the class solidarity that xootsuit professes to have could not have written as he did.
What are we talking about again?
"How do whisper campaigns begin?"
Apparently hartal misstates something over and over and over and over and over, until someone else finally, mistakenly repeats it as possible fact.
So by that logic--and it's nice to see you actually try to make a point, qua-- Obama's supporters were to blame for taking on the the whisper campaign begun by Hillary Clinton saying something to the effect: He's not Muslim as far as I can tell but who knows? Well, yes, I did see him at the door of a Church, so it's not that likely that he's a Muslim. Mark Penn speaks this way. I reiterate that no real union man could possibly have worded things the way xootsuit did. He's a faker.
"I reiterate that no real union man could possibly have worded things the way . . . ."
WTF is a "real union man"? John Henry? Eugene Debs? Joe Hill? What a load of crap, hartal.
And I reiterate the incommensurable sorrow I feel every time you fuck up your rhetoric and logic. You, hartal, are a poseur and a fool. A joke. No one here wants to see your posts, much less read them.
If anyone (other than Young C, of course) disagrees, please post up.
There was a time, maybe 8 months ago...no...it was tomorrow...when I felt pancakes would replace my laundry. But I realized I was misinformed when devout days were filled with yeti like cigarettes and I knew then and where such fossils would breath yams through their napes and fill the vast void with such trinckets as pastachios and raisans and other missspelled words that eventually the truinition of the faithful would come upon me and sayeth "yeh. I am not a pussycat. Hither or non, I smelleth a vulture".
And as soon as that happened, laughing Sal winced at me and went beyond expectations and forwarded her left arm with a magnitude of vitriol and spewed out her slimy candy with health and vigor beyond anything a llama could embrace.
And I mean that.
qua palimpsest said...
"How do whisper campaigns begin?"
Apparently hartal misstates something over and over and over and over and over, until someone else finally, mistakenly repeats it as possible fact.
April 17, 2009 7:49 PM
Or more commonly known as a "fartal".
How's that ferret...would that fart joke fly in your family?
WV:ronicact. And I mean that.
'WTF is a "real union man"?', asks some coward.
Oh have you not heard of the legend of the battlescared xootsuit who endured corporate goons and actual termination to unionize the one surfer whose most remarkable experience with others did not require anyone else. xootsuit speaks of his own legend often. Pay attention, qua.
FH -- on your horn-beeping support for labor picketers. I also automatically assume picketing laborers need all the help they can get. But if you don't know the details of the dispute, how much real support can you (even, I suppose, should you) offer? So the trade off between immediate self-interest and the great long-term goals of solidarity and equality makes a lot of sense.
For somewhat analogous reasons, I wear a mask on blogs. I mean, do you think I want people to know I can be found posting next to a surrealist like TedSpe?
I think I should have said, "a talented surrealist." That's clearer.
How can someone who so clearly believes himself to be superior to everyone else claim to have class solidarity? It is a puzzlement.
wv: irelesed
I've already told you why...he's a bigot with an inferiority complex. He's gonna show whitey a thing or two.
Now, if we were all black, he'd find one reason to not slam everyone here.
What he doesn't realize is that (at least speaking for myself) that the color of his skin is of no importance in relation to the things he says and the manner that he says them.
Wait how was it that you jumped from my dissing two lawyers (one who brags about a big corporate client and the other who has said that he defends commercial real estate interests, that is landlords I would imagine) and a reactionary Catholic bigot to the statements that I can't be serious about class solidarity and that I must hate all white people.
Just remarkable.
Why do I get a mental picture of Snidely Whiplash when I imagine hartal thinking about my clients? I'm sure most people are aware that, in the context of commercial leasing, tenants and landlords both tend to be businesses, usually corporations or limited liability companies.
wv: princer
Obviously, it's how I think of myself relative to hartal. Nyah-ha-ha! :)
I always liked this song.
http://tinyurl.com/c9vcfu
Xoot: I would discuss that (early) Pere Ubu song with you, but it might not be allowed... ;-)
So check this out instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTFSLHHEMa8
Many years ago, I performed a medley of Lawyers in Love and I Fought the Law for an audience of legal types. On acoustic guitar. It got the reaction you might expect. :)
wv: undepit
Thanks xootsuit.
Thou art too kind
Post a Comment