Another day, another intentionally misleading, anti-labor editorial from the Seattle Times:
LAST year organized labor pushed a bill to restrict a company’s ability to talk to its employees. It was marketed as the Worker Privacy Act, and its aim was to shut up managers during the organizing of a union, so that only the union organizer would be heard.
That, of course, is a load of crap. The Worker Privacy Act would have done nothing to restrict a company’s ability to talk to its employees, it didn’t “shut up managers,” and would not have assured that only union organizers would be heard. Employers would have been just as free to oppose unionization as they are now, even to hold meetings expressly for that purpose. The only difference under WPA would be that employees would be equally free, if they so chose, not to participate in such non-work related meetings (regarding unions, religion, politics, etc.) without fear of retaliation.
As it stands now, your employer can call a meeting for the sole purpose of proselytizing and converting non-Christian workers, and then fire your ass if you walk out or choose not to attend. They can force you to attend a companywide Tea Party. Or they can crowd you into a room without a union representative, and cajole/harangue/threaten as much as they want in their effort prevent unionization. That’s the inequity the WPA sought to address.
No law like it existed in any other state.
You know, except for neighboring Oregon, and I’m guessing a few other states. But regardless, that’s an incredibly stupid argument prima facie. No other nation guaranteed freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of speech at the time our First Amendment was adopted, so would that have been a reasonable argument to reject it? According to the Times, yes.
Business hated it, and Democratic leaders, elected with union support, found an excuse to kill it.
In a hyperbolic charade intended to provide political cover for scuttling the bill, Democratic leaders literally called the cops on labor over an internal email that state troopers and other watchdogs ultimately laughed off. And the Times presents this as a good thing?
The spirit of this bill resurfaced deep in the 292-page budget measure, ESSB 6444, moving through the Legislature. Certain employers receiving state funds would be forbidden “to use these funds to assist, promote, or deter union organization.” The “or deter” is what this is about.
This restriction is not for all employers. It is only on those providing long-term care or services to people with disabilities. But the principle is the same: The state would use its spending power to favor unions.
You gotta be kidding. The 30-word provision in question has absolutely nothing to do with the WPA. The WPA would have protected workers from retaliation when choosing not to participate in workplace communications related to issues of conscience. On the other hand, here is the specific language to which the Times objects:
“No employer, provider, or entity receiving state funds to provide long-term care services or services to the developmentally disabled may use these funds to assist, promote, or deter union organization.”
Would the Times object to the provision had the word “deter” been deleted? No, of course not. Indeed, the Times wouldn’t even have been aware of the provision had it not been brought to their attention by the Association of Washington Businesses. (You don’t think the Times’ editors are actually in the habit of reading 292-page bills, do you?)
In fact, the provision is actually quite evenhanded, as it prohibits an “employer, provider, or entity” from using state funds to “assist” or “promote” union organization, as well as to “deter” it — specifically and only within the context of providing long-term care to the developmentally disabled. And yes, there are union “entities” that receive state funds for the purpose of providing training to long-term care workers, that would fall under this provision, so it does impact employers and unions alike.
Oh, and it’s not like this provision was added without provocation. Long-term care employers have used state funds to hold mandatory “training” meetings for the purpose of deterring union activities… and they’ve been caught on video. The Times is all gung ho about reducing the footprint of state government while protecting seniors from shoddy long-term care, yet apparently the editors believe mandatory anti-union meetings to be an appropriate use of taxpayer funded training dollars. Go figure.
Here, not coincidentally, the benefit would go the state’s most politically aggressive union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
And here, not coincidentally, is the crux of this issue. The Times just hates SEIU, and thus anything SEIU supports, the Times opposes. SEIU = evil incarnate.
Compared to the whole economy, long-term-care homes are not large. But if this provision goes through once, it will be used again. “We view this provision as a crossing of the Rubicon,” said Kris Tefft, counsel to the Association of Washington Business.
AWB = second coming of Christ on Earth.
Oh… and I’m sure SEIU and the provision’s sponsor were asked to provide a comment too, but just never got around to it.
Let us be clear: Under federal labor law, unions can speak to workers. So can employers. A state cannot abridge the rights of either side. The U.S. Supreme Court said so recently in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (2007). There the Court threw out a California law that forbade any employer receiving $10,000 in state money from using it “to assist, promote or deter union organizing.”
Let us be clear: the Seattle Times editorial board has the legal acumen of a walnut, and is no more in the habit of reading (let alone understanding) obscure court opinions than it is of spelunking through the details of 292-page legislative bills. Like the provision in question, the Times was only made aware of this court case through the tireless PR efforts of the water-walking, loaves-and-fishes-multiplying AWB, and you can be pretty damn sure that the Times’ interpretation of Chamber of Commerce v. Brown came straight from the mouth of AWB. So forgive me if I don’t take it at face value.
In fact, Chamber of Commerce v. Brown appears to very narrowly focus on whether or not the National Labor Relations Act preempts state restrictions that attempt to regulate employer speech about union organizing under circumstances where Congress intended free debate. A quick reading of both the decision and the dissent makes it clear that the entire case rests on interpreting Congressional intent.
But while the California statute rejected under Chamber of Commerce v. Brown was broad, the particular provision to which the Times objects (at the apparent behest of AWB), merely seeks to reiterate a policy that is already in federal Medicare and Medicaid law, and thus unambiguously sanctioned by Congress. The Medicare provider manual states that “Costs incurred for activities directly related to influencing employees respecting unionization or related to attempts to coerce employees or otherwise interfere with or restrain the exercise of employee rights under the NLRA are not allowable costs for program purposes,” and a few minutes of Googling reveals that this language is duplicated in state Medicaid regulations throughout the nation. (Minnesota, North Dakota and Alabama, for example.)
The ruling was 7-2, with the Court’s senior liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens, laying down the law.
Well, as long as the Times is lauding a liberal justice — you know, when it believes it suits its purpose — let’s take a look at what Justice Stevens actually wrote:
[T]he mere fact that Congress has imposed targeted federal restrictions on union-related advocacy in certain limited contexts does not invite the States to override federal labor policy in other settings.
That is the heart of the majority opinion, and since ESSB 6444 imposes targeted advocacy restrictions within the exact same limited context and setting as that already provided under federal law, it is clearly permissible, and the Times application of Chamber of Commerce v. Brown to ESSB 6444 is clearly wrong. Ignorant, misinformed, boneheaded wrong.
The same language Justice Stevens struck down has been in and out of the budget bill in Olympia. It is a bad provision and has to stay out.
Like I said… the legal acumen of a walnut.
But then, that’s the kind of foolishness that comes from letting your hatred of organized labor get in the way of the facts.
The covers are being yanked off the Union Democrats who have destroyed Washington State’s ability to have a sustainable Budget.
It’s looooong overdue.
Congrats to the Seattle Times and Ryan Blethen.
In answer to your question/headline: As much as Fairview Fanny hates unions, its consistent disdain for truth appears to be overriding.
Now that the P-I is dead — AWB rest its soul — there is nothing left in newsprint to tether the Times Editorial Board’s hysterical anti-worker fascism to any reasonable mainstream thinking on workplace issues, much less to a basis in fact.
Thanks, Goldy, for putting in the time and effort to call them out (again).
I never thought one editorial page could cause me to break a lifetime habit, but the Seattle Times is sure trying to make me.
I feel your pain, newspaper reader. For even more years, I think.
The increasing hysteria and irrationality of the Blethen Times couldn’t have happened at a more propitious time … the Times subscription renewal invoice was in yesterday’s mail. Even though we’re heading into baseball season and the daily devotional reading of the box scores, I’ve all but decided that I’m going to drop my subscription. Maybe I’ll retain the Sunday paper … but maybe not.
They’re about to create still another former daily newspaper reader. And to drive their target demographic even farther in the direction of octogenarians.
“As it stands now, your employer can call a meeting for the sole purpose of proselytizing and converting non-Christian workers, and then fire your ass if you walk out or choose not to attend.”
Why would anyone want to work for an employer like this, anyway? Just walk out and let them fire you, then collect unemployment benefits. You can’t be denied benefits for this.
Then use the money to start your own consulting business, and sell your services to your former employer at B2B rates.
Get rid of your boss, lower his experience rating, and get a raise … all at the same time … see how smart I am?
Envy and the malice it breeds are sure ugly things to see in an otherwise intelligent person (albeit one wrong on virtually every political or cultural issue.)
Get over it Goldy. So the times didn’t want to print your stuff. It happens. Don’t read it, tell other people not to as well. But I seriously doubt your mental health with this obsession with the Times.
@7 Get real! Goldy wouldn’t work for the Times if Frank Blethen came crawling to him on his knees. Why would Goldy want to be economically dependent on a rightwing union-hating rag with one foot in the bankruptcy grave? Only stupid trolls think that.
Can “Lost” possibly discredit himself more than he already has, or make himself more irrelevant to intelligent discussion than he already is? He’s trying.
Re 9
Oh! I didn’t see an intelligent conversation going. My bad.
But it is indicative of the coming problems with the far left wing of the Democrat party. You folks define yourselves more by what you hate than what you propose to do. This works when people are scared and looking for someone to blame. It might not do so well as a strategy this fall.
Commentary of this sort misses the larger point, though. Why does the employer-employee relationship even exist? Why do 21st-century Americans still accept the master-servant concept as legitimate? It’s an anachronism of the 19th-century industrial revolution that brought monopolies and trusts, watered stock and banking collapses, sweatshops and unsafe working conditions, machine gunning of strikers, and other relics of the dark ages. Employment has already been effectively abolished by employers, who have taken away all the things that provided substance to employment relationships in the past — steady work, loyalty, decent pay and benefits, a sense that business owners and their workers prospered or not together — it’s all gone. Today, we have virtual companies that come and go like ticker symbols, a workforce in which everyone is a temp, and the commoditization of labor in which workers are just another economic input like energy or raw materials. Workers already have to be entrepreneurs, so why shouldn’t they own their labor and market it like any other business, and charge business rates for the labor they produce? No independent business person, which is what all workers are now, should charge less than $50 an hour. You can’t even get a Roto-Rooter guy for that much, so why should businesses expect to buy labor from independent business people for $8 or $10 an hour? Screw that, set up your own business, with your work as your product, and charge ’em business rates. After all, businesses have given you the responsible of paying for your education and training, acquiring the tools of your trade, and providing your own transportation, health care, and retirement, so you should consider yourself self-employed. They do.
@10 Republicans may well win the House this fall. Politics always provides fertile grazing ground for sheep like you.
“Can “Lost” possibly discredit himself more than he already has”
Well, after his incessant whines about his lazy employees and his miserable, government-teat-sucking slum tenants, and throwing in his insipid thoughts about how FDR was a traitor and the worst president ever, I’d say the answer to that question is a very simple “no”.
@9: These liars can’t be embarrassed, silly Rabbit!
The poor, the sick and taxes are also fairly high on the Seattle Times’ Hate List.
Now Steve, you know better.
I’ve never ‘whined’ about lazy employees. I fire lazy employees. I think what you’re referring to is a basic commentary that most people are born employees without the native talent to lead.
I’ve never ‘whined’ about my tenants. They pay on time every month. They don’t ask me to do more than good sense and the law require of a landlord. I did say that while many are on some form of welfare all have cable tv. All have high speed internet. Most smoke or drink. Again, in context this was about whether people could afford preventive care in cash, and I was merely showing that they could, if they chose.
And FDR is everything I called him. Actually I was holding back a bit.
Zotz, why do I have to train you in basic rhetoric every time. I’ve just about given up, but one more time.
Calling someone a liar is pointless, unless you show where and how they lied. What you do just makes you look as foolish as you are.
@ 4 & 5:
YESSSSSSS!
Cancel your subscribtion — NOW! Cancel and ask for the balance of your money back.
Certainly, do not renew your subscription.
I cancelled mine back in 2000 when the Times:
A) Let Mason Sizemore, the publisher at the time, try to bust the union.
and,
B) Endorsed Bush over Gore.
Every time those MF’s called me asking to renew my subscription I told them not until the Blthen family stops with radical right-wing agenda.
Now, they don’t even care.
Don’t fall prey to the false argument that if everyone cancelled their subscription the paper would go out of business.
It’s going to go out of business anyway because it’s poorly managed by its current ownership.
If enough people did cancel with the aforementioned reason, they’ll chagne their tune so they can continue to reap the millions of dollars each year they receive from their newspaper.
They will not bend to the will of the People, but they will bend to the almighty dollar.
“The love of money is the root of all evil”
1 Timothy 6:10.
Or as they say on South Park “Tim-mah”
Zotz, for an astonishing 2nd time lost and I agree; unless you can demonstrate lost is a liar there’s no sense in going down that path.
It gets into a messy finger pointing fiasco.
Instead, do what I did to lost. Pick a topic he blathers on about but obviously knows little about. Then beat the crap out of him with facts.
Like when he said America was founded on Christian principles, inferring that America was founded on Christian religion principles.
You wouldn’t believe the twists and turns he went through trying to rewrite history.
In the end, he was left defending an indefensible argument. It was quite hilarious.
GBS
It’s amusing that you continue to claim victory on something that a)is subjective opinion not settled by anyone but you, and b)you lost on basic philosophical points anyway and c)irrelevant as it didn’t change anyones opinion, the real point of engaging in discussion.
But I hope you’re enjoying the nice day. According to your crowd in a few years it will be 110 degrees every day in March in the next decade as GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC WARMING occurs (or not.) So enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh, guess you guys won’t have to worry about temperature rises. Seattle will be underwater as sea level rises by 62 feet and we’re all cannibals when the San Fernando goes underwater too. Good news there, what?
Wow, tough call.
20 Lost
Dude, I know you’re not well informed, but sea levels are not predicted to rise “62 feet.”
Why not inform yourself for perhaps the first time in your life?
http://www.ipcc.ch
19 lost
Dude, I know you’re not well informed, but, well, you know…
Why not inform yourself for perhaps the first time in your life?
http://www.ipcc.ch
lost @ 19 & 20:
Ohhhhhhh, man this is FUNNY.
OK, OK, you win. I get it. You’ve been pulling my leg to whooooooole time just to get a rise out of me.
Well played, sir.
Because if you believe what you wrote you’d be a complete moron.
Because:
A) America being religiously neutral is a historical and legal fact and not even anywhere close to being a “subjective opinion.” Good one.
Here’s Art. VI from our Constitution:
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law (not God’s law: GBS comment) of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, (absolute inclusiveness of all legislators and judges: GBS comment) shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Basically what this means is that all public officials swear an oath of fidelity to the Constitution above all else in the execution of their public office duties.
B) Your philosophical attempts to soften the blow of your fall didn’t help your cause either. Again, I’ll invite you one more time to point out the principles of Christianity, that are unique to Christianity, that are the founding principles of America. You don’t because you can’t.
C) I can only give you facts, historical documents, governing documents, and a preponderance of legal case precedent. It’s up to you to digest the information with an open mind and challenge your thinking on the matter. Only YOU can change your opinion. The exchange if information and ideas is the real reason to engage in dialogue. The shifting of opinions is squarely up to you.
If, you choose to ignore the facts and continue with your obviously erroneous opinions then that is not mark against me, it is a mark against you and your character and judgment.
Which brings me to your post at 20: Of course you don’t believe in the massive amounts of scientific data that human activities are increasing carbon gas output into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates which is affecting our environment.
You now that ice melts when exposed to temperatures above 32 F.
You can see for yourself NASA satellite images of the polar ice caps and see how much they’ve shrunk in the last few decades.
You can read news stories for yourself that the previously impassable Northwest Passage is now a reality because artic ice flows have receded so much.
You can see the effects of large mammals at the top of their food chain dying because the ice flows have diminished so drastically the polar bears drown.
But, you will still choose to believe that the Earth’s temperature is not heating up and global warming is a farce.
The real answer isn’t because you’re stupid. The real answer is you are far and away more loyal to the Radical Right-Wing Ideology of Ronald Reagan than the facts that are right in front of your nose.
The choice is yours; realize that America was founded as a religiously neutral country and global warming is real, or choose to ignore the facts because you’d rather divide America than unite behind the truth brought forth by someone who happened to be a Democrat.
That’s what this is really all about. You now it. I know it. Everyone reading your dribble knows it.
Why can’t you simply admit that if a Republican rang the alarm that global warming was endangering our planet you’d be all for it.
Doesn’t fit with your rigid ideology that everything Republican is right and everything Democrat is wrong regardless of the facts.
Got it.
‘Refusing to participate on issues of conscience” is ok if you’re a doucebagger but not ok if you’re a teabagger….
I guess Goldy is in support of Pharmacists refusing to dispense plan B since he’s all about issues of conscience now.
“… a basic commentary that most people are born employees without the native talent to lead.”
Which leads to the corollary that these poor schmucks deserve their lot, and should not be allowed to lead. This is a laughable form of social Darwinism, but still dangerous because at heart, conservatives believe an elite deserve to lead in business, society, and government.
This has always been the case. When a conservative cries that “the people should decide” you know they are lying.
Saint Ronald Reagan:
1. Liar
2. FBI snitch
3. Racist supporter of the apartheid regime in S. Africa.
4. Authorized illegal arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras.
5. Liar
5. For the most part clueless.
@16 “I think what you’re referring to is a basic commentary that most people are born employees without the native talent to lead.”
I think your attempt to dignify this screed by calling is “commentary” is presumptuous.
@17 I never subscribed in the first place. I sicced the attorney general’s consumer protection division on them.
The Seattle Times engaged in what I call “harassment marketing.” This is a form of extortion in which telemarketers keep hounding you until you cave in and buy the product or service. If you ask them to leave you alone, they increase the calls, because they know they’re getting to you. The fact the Seattle Times uses this kind of marketing to sell subscription puts them right down in the gutter with the Mafia.
I’ve also been nearly run over by the guy who delivers the Times to my neighbor. He speeds down the common driveway. I asked him to slow down his vehicle when he’s on my property but the smartass’s response was, “Oh, you’re the guy that doesn’t take the Times, aren’t you?”
The Seattle Times is an evil force in our community.
@19 So you think refuting your bullshit is “irrelevant” because we’ll never change your mind? You miss the point altogether.
I have some friends and relatives who are Republicans and send me rightwing e-mails. I always send back the snopes.com link debunking the e-mail, but you never change a Republican’s mind with facts. These people have a gut-level compulsive need to believe rightwing bullshit. It’s a mental illness.
GBS,
Nice job of filleting lost tonight. Naturally, of course, lost has no idea that he has been filleted.
The municipal bond market is corrupt and the Obama administration is going after the crooks. This would never happen under a Republican administration. Who are these thieves stealing from? Taxpayers.
http://www.businessweek.com/ne.....mysak.html
@32 “Naturally, of course, lost has no idea that he has been filleted.”
Neither does a dead fish.
It’s a mental illness.
That could very well be true. How can it be cured?
At least Goldy acknowledges that the Second Coming of Christ is connected to the triumph of the business community.
Oh, so now the game is to change terms in the middle of the argument?
Religiously neutral our country is and should be, nor have I ever denied that. We don’t officially endorse any religion to protect the freedom to practice any religion.
What you’ve been talking about is a kind of religious apartheid where the only acceptable religion is your brand of evangelical atheism. It isn’t Christmas, it’s ‘the holidays.’ It isn’t okay for a chaplain in the army to administer comfort to a soldier, because he might be proselytizing.
What you want is a hermetically sealed wall between church and state. This is ridiculous, considering all official functions began with prayer during the first years. Is this consistent with the rabid atheists you’d like to believe the framers were? Hardly.
But I’m tired of trying to speak sense to the senseless. Believe whatever nonsense makes you happy. Provided you don’t try to take my right to faith away on the same principle that brought us ‘separate but equal.’ Then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, God bless. Or is that phrase supposed to be illegal in your worldview?
Man made global warming is a crock. Does the climate of the earth naturally change over time? Does it cycle? Sure. Epedemioligists have recently come to believe that the 2 century long medieval worldwide recurrence of Bubonic Plague was facilitated by unusually warm temperatures, temperatures which moderated in time. All those pretty Currier and Ives cards were inspired by an unusually cold period early in the 20th century.
It makes sense to be good stewards and use less energy where economically feasible. It makes sense to break our addiction to fossil fuels and develop viable renewable sources of energy. To go from there to the ethanol fiasco, or to assume that we can power the entire US on your pipe dreams of renewable energy is the policy of an idiot, or the corrupt.
Gore makes an awful lot of money doing his celebrated impersonation of Chicken Little, but he has been curiously reticent on the recent scandals involving scientists fiddling the numbers. Carbon credits will make some folks very wealthy trading them, the ones pushing that fool idea, presumably. It will also increase the price of every single product made in this country. And you know, our trade deficit is not high enough, right?
So continue to believe the silly nonsense you do. I’m sure on some adolescent level it makes you happy.
Saint FDR was
a) Fundamentally European, not American
b) Economically illiterate
c) Violator of his oath to uphold the Constitution
d) Carried a gay looking cigarette holder
e) Communist
f) All of the above
Re 30
My point was that I wasn’t going to change his mind or he mine. That’s all I meant. I only mention it because he continually brings it up, like a wife saying ‘and another thing’ 2 days after an argument.
He really believes that we are a fundamentally atheist country. I don’t. The point of continuing to discuss that on those terms eludes me.
GBS,
Just as a friendly pointer-
You seem a smart person. You seem a person who reads and observes and draws conclusions from those experiences. Kudos. The US needs more of that type.
But you continually make the assumption that anyone with whom you disagree is both wrong and stupid. This is what used to be called hubris. Look up Sisyphus sometime.
I assume that you, Leftist, Rabbit and company are sincerely interested in what’s good for your communities and the country at large. I assume you to be reasonably intelligent people with whom I happen to disagree on most every political or cultural issue. But I also assume that we are just using different philosphies to attain the same goals. In my opinion, your worldview is less well suited to the goal of a stronger and better off community in the long run. But I don’t assume you to be stupid, illiterate or a moron on that account.
Have a nice weekend.
Re 22 and 23
Ever heard of hyperbole?
BTW, Ted Turner did say that we’d all be cannibals by mid century on account of CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.
Funny stuff, but funnier because he was serious.
Well, I’m off to my cabin where I intentionally don’t have internet for a few days. Have fun.
lost at 40: “This is what used to be called hubris. Look up Sisyphus sometime.”
Hubris is one thing. The Sisyphian challenge would be another. (I will say that Camus’s “The Myth of Sisyphus” is how I tend to think of Sisyphus, though I know that Camus strayed from the Greek tale a bit.) I see one possible connection, though remote. Tell me what connection you see. Maybe then I can get some insight into your way of thinking.
Goldy, the AWB is the first coming of Christ. Be a good Jew once in a while, for pete’s sake, even if you are an atheist.
@37 “What you’ve been talking about is a kind of religious apartheid where the only acceptable religion is your brand of evangelical atheism. It isn’t Christmas, it’s ‘the holidays.’ It isn’t okay for a chaplain in the army to administer comfort to a soldier, because he might be proselytizing.”
This bears no resemblance to anything I’ve seen anyone post here. It’s your own construct, the exaggeration of a runaway mind. You have a gift for misinterpreting and misrepresenting other people’s opinions. Or, perhaps you’re pathologically dishonest. It is because of comments like this that you are treated with disrespect on this blog.
@40 “I assume that you, Leftist, Rabbit and company are sincerely interested in what’s good for your communities and the country at large. I assume you to be reasonably intelligent people with whom I happen to disagree on most every political or cultural issue. But I also assume that we are just using different philosphies to attain the same goals. In my opinion, your worldview is less well suited to the goal of a stronger and better off community in the long run. But I don’t assume you to be stupid, illiterate or a moron on that account.”
How can someone with this much insight consistently end up posting complete shit? You make such a good start, then fall so completely apart — why does that happen?
@45
He just likes to project.