Hillary Clinton at Wal-Mart
January 31, 2008 6:49 AM Subscribe
"Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living." The mantra of Hillary Clinton's old Wal-Mart colleague John Tate, head of the corporation's anti-union activity. During her six years on the Board of Directors, Clinton made no attempt to ease the suppression of organized labor.
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is a mess of an axe-grindy FPP. -- jessamyn
".... of people who work for a living" - picking the pockets of people who work for a living.
Imagine that, Hillary, a corporate tool!
posted by Max Power at 6:58 AM on January 31, 2008
Imagine that, Hillary, a corporate tool!
posted by Max Power at 6:58 AM on January 31, 2008
Imagine that, Hillary^h^h^h^h^h^h^hany politician, a corporate tool.
There, fixed that.
posted by sfts2 at 7:01 AM on January 31, 2008
There, fixed that.
posted by sfts2 at 7:01 AM on January 31, 2008
As always, anyone making any unfair comparisons loses the thread.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:05 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:05 AM on January 31, 2008
Read up on American labor and unions and how they are dealt with, unfairly, by National labor Relations board, and then ask if Hillary, all by herself, got all that Walmart stuff made in China, at the cost of American labor, and then ask why American voters have time after time voted conservative and thus helped kill off unions in this country...and then tell us what Obama will do to restore things to what they were before Hillary got elected to the Senate
posted by Postroad at 7:10 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Postroad at 7:10 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Obviously all candidates (still) in the race have taken corporate dollars. But there are degrees. The Clintons have always presented themselves as the "New" Democrats who are "business-friendly" (i.e. human-unfriendly).
I like how labor unions are blood-sucking parasites but corporations aren't. What exactly is the difference? I pay for each and from each I receive a service. I pay a company to mow my lawn (actually I don't, but you get it) and they do. I pay a union to represent me to management (actually I don't, but you get it) and they do.
And to short-circuit the inevitable "you are forced to join a union", why can't I "get a job somewhere else" just like all the anti-union types always say about poor working conditions?
posted by DU at 7:11 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
I like how labor unions are blood-sucking parasites but corporations aren't. What exactly is the difference? I pay for each and from each I receive a service. I pay a company to mow my lawn (actually I don't, but you get it) and they do. I pay a union to represent me to management (actually I don't, but you get it) and they do.
And to short-circuit the inevitable "you are forced to join a union", why can't I "get a job somewhere else" just like all the anti-union types always say about poor working conditions?
posted by DU at 7:11 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
Imagine that, Hillary^h^h^h^h^h^h^hany politician, a corporate tool.
What?
Anyway, has anyone else noticed that when confronted with charges of corruption, distortion, or collusion, Clinton supporters readily admit the accusations with a flippant "all of them do it." No, they don't all do it. Not every politician was a corporate lawyer for and on the board of the most lucrative, unabashedly anti-union, sexist (not sexy!) corporation the world has ever seen. I'm sorry. The relativity thing just doesn't play. Hillary certainly has admirable characteristics, is a good candidate, and presumably would make a fine president. But to compare her to other politicians who have spent their lives either in public service or working for/with the community is just silly - apples/oranges and so forth. There is a reason why Hillary never mentioned her six years with Wal-Mart in her autobiography. She is ashamed of the association, as any normal human being would be. Let's not forget that during her tenure in Little Rock she also represented corporations that polluted the hell out of local communities. Sort of the anti-Erin Brockovich.
posted by billysumday at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2008 [10 favorites]
What?
Anyway, has anyone else noticed that when confronted with charges of corruption, distortion, or collusion, Clinton supporters readily admit the accusations with a flippant "all of them do it." No, they don't all do it. Not every politician was a corporate lawyer for and on the board of the most lucrative, unabashedly anti-union, sexist (not sexy!) corporation the world has ever seen. I'm sorry. The relativity thing just doesn't play. Hillary certainly has admirable characteristics, is a good candidate, and presumably would make a fine president. But to compare her to other politicians who have spent their lives either in public service or working for/with the community is just silly - apples/oranges and so forth. There is a reason why Hillary never mentioned her six years with Wal-Mart in her autobiography. She is ashamed of the association, as any normal human being would be. Let's not forget that during her tenure in Little Rock she also represented corporations that polluted the hell out of local communities. Sort of the anti-Erin Brockovich.
posted by billysumday at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2008 [10 favorites]
"__________ are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
So many things could fill in that blank.
Including mosquitoes and Count Dracula.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:15 AM on January 31, 2008 [4 favorites]
So many things could fill in that blank.
Including mosquitoes and Count Dracula.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:15 AM on January 31, 2008 [4 favorites]
And "MetaFilter:".
posted by The Bellman at 7:29 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by The Bellman at 7:29 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
And to short-circuit the inevitable "you are forced to join a union", why can't I "get a job somewhere else" just like all the anti-union types always say about poor working conditions?
posted by DU at 10:11 AM on January 31
You don't pay a union to represent you. You join a union to be represented. You are part of the union. And in many industries in the 70's, all of the jobs in that industry were unionized. There were no non-union autoworkers.
The problem is not that the union forced you to join. The problem is that very early on the Union management made the decision that it would be better if a factory closed and some members lost their jobs than for the members at the factory to negotiate a contract that would lower their wage, but let them keep their job. Think about that - you never hear of a union negotiating to make less money, but country is littered with closed factories.
The reason they did this is because if one group of workers negotiates for less, very quickly all of the contracts for all of the workers would be negotiated for less, and they average wage (and therefore the average dues) would decline. The unions simply crunched the numbers and decided that it would earn more money if some workers lost there jobs, paid no dues, and got benefits, but the other members were still working at full price.
The problem is that the Union didn't realize that the labor market is global. So most of the factories closed.
We know corporations are motivated solely by profit. They don't claim otherwise. Unions are supposed to represent the best interests of the works. But instead they work for the best interest of the Union itself, and its management.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:31 AM on January 31, 2008 [10 favorites]
posted by DU at 10:11 AM on January 31
You don't pay a union to represent you. You join a union to be represented. You are part of the union. And in many industries in the 70's, all of the jobs in that industry were unionized. There were no non-union autoworkers.
The problem is not that the union forced you to join. The problem is that very early on the Union management made the decision that it would be better if a factory closed and some members lost their jobs than for the members at the factory to negotiate a contract that would lower their wage, but let them keep their job. Think about that - you never hear of a union negotiating to make less money, but country is littered with closed factories.
The reason they did this is because if one group of workers negotiates for less, very quickly all of the contracts for all of the workers would be negotiated for less, and they average wage (and therefore the average dues) would decline. The unions simply crunched the numbers and decided that it would earn more money if some workers lost there jobs, paid no dues, and got benefits, but the other members were still working at full price.
The problem is that the Union didn't realize that the labor market is global. So most of the factories closed.
We know corporations are motivated solely by profit. They don't claim otherwise. Unions are supposed to represent the best interests of the works. But instead they work for the best interest of the Union itself, and its management.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:31 AM on January 31, 2008 [10 favorites]
Pastabagel:
I agree with your assessment but wonder: what were unions supposed to do? No union or lack of union could slow the emigration of manufacturing jobs to other countries where labor standards and currency value are so much lower than the US. Would it have really benefited the country and workers to allow factories to pay workers $2/hour? Less? The manufacturing unions should have been lobbying politicians in the 70's, not management. But you cannot export some jobs, like the cashier at Wal-Mart, the stockboy at Wal-Mart, the manager at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has resisted and vilified unions because - this is at least one of their reasons - they know that they cannot move their workforce if the demands of the unions become too great for their liking.
posted by billysumday at 7:39 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
I agree with your assessment but wonder: what were unions supposed to do? No union or lack of union could slow the emigration of manufacturing jobs to other countries where labor standards and currency value are so much lower than the US. Would it have really benefited the country and workers to allow factories to pay workers $2/hour? Less? The manufacturing unions should have been lobbying politicians in the 70's, not management. But you cannot export some jobs, like the cashier at Wal-Mart, the stockboy at Wal-Mart, the manager at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has resisted and vilified unions because - this is at least one of their reasons - they know that they cannot move their workforce if the demands of the unions become too great for their liking.
posted by billysumday at 7:39 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
Not all of them, Pastabagel. Some unions are better than others, just like some corporations treat their employees better than others. And organized labor is a generally a good thing, even if the implementation has sometimes been poor.
posted by Tehanu at 7:41 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by Tehanu at 7:41 AM on January 31, 2008
Pastabel - exactly who in the Union is benefiting from the fees? Who exactly is profiting from the workers?
- The union fees go directly back into supporting the Union memebers when needs be.
you speak as though there is some head of the Union getting his billion dollar bonus or golden parachute..
posted by mary8nne at 7:52 AM on January 31, 2008
- The union fees go directly back into supporting the Union memebers when needs be.
you speak as though there is some head of the Union getting his billion dollar bonus or golden parachute..
posted by mary8nne at 7:52 AM on January 31, 2008
Think about that - you never hear of a union negotiating to make less money, but country is littered with closed factories.
there have been many instances where a union has negotiated lower wages and made other concessions to keep a company from sending jobs overseas
google "union concessions"
posted by pyramid termite at 8:03 AM on January 31, 2008
there have been many instances where a union has negotiated lower wages and made other concessions to keep a company from sending jobs overseas
google "union concessions"
posted by pyramid termite at 8:03 AM on January 31, 2008
Pastabel - exactly who in the Union is benefiting from the fees? Who exactly is profiting from the workers?
Not the workers, that's for sure.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:08 AM on January 31, 2008
Not the workers, that's for sure.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:08 AM on January 31, 2008
Pastabel - exactly who in the Union is benefiting from the fees? Who exactly is profiting from the workers?
Are you kidding? A few years old, but...
20 Top Union Leaders Averaged $223,000 In Pay In 2000-2002, New Survey Reveals
Robert Chase, president of the independent National Education Assn., the largest union in the United States with 2.7 million members, was paid almost $223,000 in 2002, while Sandra Feldman, president of the rival American Federation of Teachers, with one-million members, received $328,941. [...]
Why does Doug Dority, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, deserve to receive $329,792 a year, the highest salary of any of the AFL-CIO's 64 international union presidents? The UFCW is only the fifth largest in the labor movement. But Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest within the federation, earns only $210,000. [...]
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 8:10 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Are you kidding? A few years old, but...
20 Top Union Leaders Averaged $223,000 In Pay In 2000-2002, New Survey Reveals
Robert Chase, president of the independent National Education Assn., the largest union in the United States with 2.7 million members, was paid almost $223,000 in 2002, while Sandra Feldman, president of the rival American Federation of Teachers, with one-million members, received $328,941. [...]
Why does Doug Dority, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, deserve to receive $329,792 a year, the highest salary of any of the AFL-CIO's 64 international union presidents? The UFCW is only the fifth largest in the labor movement. But Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest within the federation, earns only $210,000. [...]
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 8:10 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
So, billysumday, I take it you really, really don't like Wal-Mart. I get it now.
Well, I'm not a fan, and don't shop there but it seems like you might be missing the fact that a great number of the sainted working class shop there and benefit from their exceedingly low prices. Does that offset ANYTHING?
By the way, where does serving on a board and not opposing something that you think should be opposed equate to 'corruption, distortion, and collusion?'
Your hyperbole astounds and eliminates any credibility. Most lucrative? Most sexist? Give me a fucking break.
To go on, 'business friendly = human unfriendly' W. T. F? What world do you guys live in? Its gotta suck going through life with such unmeasured views. The business that supports my family is pretty friendly, at least in the regard that it does so.
Can't people post here without resorting to the hyperbole? Try making a reasoned argument, and acknowledge that there are shades of gray in everything. It makes for a much more productive discussion.
/rant
posted by sfts2 at 8:11 AM on January 31, 2008
Well, I'm not a fan, and don't shop there but it seems like you might be missing the fact that a great number of the sainted working class shop there and benefit from their exceedingly low prices. Does that offset ANYTHING?
By the way, where does serving on a board and not opposing something that you think should be opposed equate to 'corruption, distortion, and collusion?'
Your hyperbole astounds and eliminates any credibility. Most lucrative? Most sexist? Give me a fucking break.
To go on, 'business friendly = human unfriendly' W. T. F? What world do you guys live in? Its gotta suck going through life with such unmeasured views. The business that supports my family is pretty friendly, at least in the regard that it does so.
Can't people post here without resorting to the hyperbole? Try making a reasoned argument, and acknowledge that there are shades of gray in everything. It makes for a much more productive discussion.
/rant
posted by sfts2 at 8:11 AM on January 31, 2008
a bit of history here. Unions came into being when the robber barons rn the nation and treated workers like scum...unions came about to offer a counterveiling force. To blame unions for all the ills of our industrial life is nonsense. Yes. Some bad guys run unions from time to time and believe it or not, some bad guys run Enron etc too. Car industry down the sepctic tank? blame the unions--sure. They have to build in to sales for each car health insurance which in most other countries is provided by the national govt. Unions lost maufacturing jobs? Sure. the owners sent the work to China cause the unions were so mean. Textile biz wants a union in Maine? move them to the South. Oh, China? sure, leave the South of US and get stuff cheaper from China--nounions in the south and no unions in China.
Not to say unions are al good etc,but heck, doctors have a guild (aka union), an so too lawyers (ABA) and on and on but they are not real unions, right...they only set prices and conditions for their work etc.
to blame unions for the nation's ills is to seek a easy answer that corporate America wants you to believe.
Now personal examples: knew a guy who was VP for GE. His job? wherever a union was abouto form at one ofthei plants,he was sent to keep it from happening.
2nd: my father worked for a large metal place. He had the name of wealthy owners--family in some way. But hewasblue collar. Union didn't want him in because he was Family/name; owners did not want him around them cause he was labor. Result: got crapped on by management and by workers. Pick a side, then,cause you are on one or the other side, in work or in thinking.
posted by Postroad at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
Not to say unions are al good etc,but heck, doctors have a guild (aka union), an so too lawyers (ABA) and on and on but they are not real unions, right...they only set prices and conditions for their work etc.
to blame unions for the nation's ills is to seek a easy answer that corporate America wants you to believe.
Now personal examples: knew a guy who was VP for GE. His job? wherever a union was abouto form at one ofthei plants,he was sent to keep it from happening.
2nd: my father worked for a large metal place. He had the name of wealthy owners--family in some way. But hewasblue collar. Union didn't want him in because he was Family/name; owners did not want him around them cause he was labor. Result: got crapped on by management and by workers. Pick a side, then,cause you are on one or the other side, in work or in thinking.
posted by Postroad at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
I have a part time second job at a grocery store pharmacy. I was forced to join a union, and it sucks in the following ways:
1. I work 14-20 hours a week at a 7.70/hour. To get any benefits, I have to average 25 hours a week.
2. They take union dues out of my check. Usually about 15.00/check - sometimes more if I pick up additional hours. I think this past year I have paid almost a grand for dues and initiation fees. What have I gotten for this? Bupkiss.
3. I can't make any more money than I am right now unless it is voted on in a contract. The union rewards longevity, not competence.
posted by pieoverdone at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008
1. I work 14-20 hours a week at a 7.70/hour. To get any benefits, I have to average 25 hours a week.
2. They take union dues out of my check. Usually about 15.00/check - sometimes more if I pick up additional hours. I think this past year I have paid almost a grand for dues and initiation fees. What have I gotten for this? Bupkiss.
3. I can't make any more money than I am right now unless it is voted on in a contract. The union rewards longevity, not competence.
posted by pieoverdone at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008
20 Top Union Leaders Averaged $223,000 In Pay In 2000-2002, New Survey Reveals
$223,000 is, frankly, peanuts compared to the top 100,000 or so executives out there.
At Wal-Mart, CEO H. Lee Scott received nearly $23 million in total compensation last year. Full-time Wal-Mart workers, who comprise only about two-thirds of Wal-Mart’s workforce, are paid an average $9.64 an hour—but may be scheduled for as few as 34 hours weekly. Even at an hourly wage of $9.64, working 34 hours a week, a Wal-Mart employee earns only $17,043 annually, well under the $18,850 federal poverty guideline for a family of four in 2004.
posted by felix at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008 [5 favorites]
$223,000 is, frankly, peanuts compared to the top 100,000 or so executives out there.
At Wal-Mart, CEO H. Lee Scott received nearly $23 million in total compensation last year. Full-time Wal-Mart workers, who comprise only about two-thirds of Wal-Mart’s workforce, are paid an average $9.64 an hour—but may be scheduled for as few as 34 hours weekly. Even at an hourly wage of $9.64, working 34 hours a week, a Wal-Mart employee earns only $17,043 annually, well under the $18,850 federal poverty guideline for a family of four in 2004.
posted by felix at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008 [5 favorites]
Well, I'm not a fan, and don't shop there but it seems like you might be missing the fact that a great number of the sainted working class shop there and benefit from their exceedingly low prices.
actually, what he and everyone else seems to miss is that walmart's competition, including the mom and pop stores they put out of business, don't treat people any better and sometimes treat them worse
---
20 Top Union Leaders Averaged $223,000 In Pay In 2000-2002, New Survey Reveals
how much do the 20 top CEOs make?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
actually, what he and everyone else seems to miss is that walmart's competition, including the mom and pop stores they put out of business, don't treat people any better and sometimes treat them worse
---
20 Top Union Leaders Averaged $223,000 In Pay In 2000-2002, New Survey Reveals
how much do the 20 top CEOs make?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 AM on January 31, 2008 [3 favorites]
So she pushed to get a few women into positions of power, and to make Wal-mart a tiny bit more environmentally sound (skylights, recycling), but never did anything pro-labor.
This sums up the Clinton type of Democrat pretty well. They have very little interest in helping working people... and thus they've lost a lot of working people's votes.
While Clinton was a Wal-mart board member, Obama was out helping to organize people in a community affected by plant closings. That speaks volumes about each of them.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:18 AM on January 31, 2008 [4 favorites]
This sums up the Clinton type of Democrat pretty well. They have very little interest in helping working people... and thus they've lost a lot of working people's votes.
While Clinton was a Wal-mart board member, Obama was out helping to organize people in a community affected by plant closings. That speaks volumes about each of them.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:18 AM on January 31, 2008 [4 favorites]
Think about that - you never hear of a union negotiating to make less money, but country is littered with closed factories.
Oh?
The United Steel Workers executive board yesterday approved wage and benefit cuts
Northwest flight attendants accept wage cuts
Delta and pilots reach interim deal on wage cut
There are dozens of similar examples from all over the world, and dating back to the 1920s in the U.S. Your dislike of unions has distorted your view of them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:24 AM on January 31, 2008 [5 favorites]
Oh?
April 2004 United Auto Workers union accepts lower wages and benefits for new employeesAlso:
December Delphi announces 8,500 job cuts. Standard & Poor's cuts credit rating to junk
October Shares touch record low of $1.12 before Delphi files for bankruptcy protection
The United Steel Workers executive board yesterday approved wage and benefit cuts
Northwest flight attendants accept wage cuts
Delta and pilots reach interim deal on wage cut
There are dozens of similar examples from all over the world, and dating back to the 1920s in the U.S. Your dislike of unions has distorted your view of them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:24 AM on January 31, 2008 [5 favorites]
Clinton's association with Wal-mart is such a non-story. It sounds bad until you look into it just a little bit.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton selling his endorsement of a corrupt dictator for $131 million? Well, that seems like a pretty big problem that will haunt her campaign going forward.
posted by willnot at 8:27 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, Bill Clinton selling his endorsement of a corrupt dictator for $131 million? Well, that seems like a pretty big problem that will haunt her campaign going forward.
posted by willnot at 8:27 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Your hyperbole astounds and eliminates any credibility. Most lucrative? Most sexist? Give me a fucking break.
Okay, the most sexist is certainly hyperbolic. They are an incredibly sexist organization but to say the most sexist is just incorrect. The most lucrative, though - I have a feeling that is correct. If it's not, I'll recant.
To go on, 'business friendly = human unfriendly' W. T. F?
Who said that? I feel like you're being hyperbolic now. There is definitely gray in everything. So the question is, at what point do I stop supporting a business? When they employ slave labor? Okay, if they employ slaves I won't shop there. What if they pay people too little? What is my mark for that? Everyone has their own standards for what they feel is a decent living wage. Personally I wish Wal-Mart would treat their employees better, both the ones they employ in their stores in the US and the ones working in factories in China producing the goods that American consumers purchase. And finally:
By the way, where does serving on a board and not opposing something that you think should be opposed equate to 'corruption, distortion, and collusion?'
I'm speaking of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's numerous entanglements with shady businesspersons, their campaign strategies, their friendly history with corporations and subsequent donations. Whenever any of these things are brought up, Clinton supporters tend to say, "all politicians do it." There is no defense, just acceptance and then rationalization. The same is true with the Wal-Mart thing. Hillary Clinton was a corporate lawyer. While at Rose she represented many large corporations in Arkansas against the interests of citizens who were being negatively affected by pollution and contamination. Not all candidates have this history.
posted by billysumday at 8:28 AM on January 31, 2008
Okay, the most sexist is certainly hyperbolic. They are an incredibly sexist organization but to say the most sexist is just incorrect. The most lucrative, though - I have a feeling that is correct. If it's not, I'll recant.
To go on, 'business friendly = human unfriendly' W. T. F?
Who said that? I feel like you're being hyperbolic now. There is definitely gray in everything. So the question is, at what point do I stop supporting a business? When they employ slave labor? Okay, if they employ slaves I won't shop there. What if they pay people too little? What is my mark for that? Everyone has their own standards for what they feel is a decent living wage. Personally I wish Wal-Mart would treat their employees better, both the ones they employ in their stores in the US and the ones working in factories in China producing the goods that American consumers purchase. And finally:
By the way, where does serving on a board and not opposing something that you think should be opposed equate to 'corruption, distortion, and collusion?'
I'm speaking of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's numerous entanglements with shady businesspersons, their campaign strategies, their friendly history with corporations and subsequent donations. Whenever any of these things are brought up, Clinton supporters tend to say, "all politicians do it." There is no defense, just acceptance and then rationalization. The same is true with the Wal-Mart thing. Hillary Clinton was a corporate lawyer. While at Rose she represented many large corporations in Arkansas against the interests of citizens who were being negatively affected by pollution and contamination. Not all candidates have this history.
posted by billysumday at 8:28 AM on January 31, 2008
actually, what he and everyone else seems to miss is that walmart's competition, including the mom and pop stores they put out of business, don't treat people any better and sometimes treat them worse
Wow, you guys seem to be putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. The myth of the perfect mom and pop shops is certainly that and in many ways a large corporation like Wal-Mart is better for workers because its policies and actions can be monitored much more easily. The question is why are workers at Wal-Mart not allowed to unionize? And, to the point of the post, did Hillary Clinton have an opinion one way or the other in regards to unions? How do her views then, when she was in a position to positively affect the policies of the corporation, compare to her views now, as she runs for president? The answer is that she and her supporters do not want to talk about it because the two positions are inconsistent. It's that simple, and I don't think it's damning enough to consider her unfit for president. But it does certainly support the perception that the Clintons are more conservative and more big business-friendly than her rivals.
posted by billysumday at 8:36 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wow, you guys seem to be putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. The myth of the perfect mom and pop shops is certainly that and in many ways a large corporation like Wal-Mart is better for workers because its policies and actions can be monitored much more easily. The question is why are workers at Wal-Mart not allowed to unionize? And, to the point of the post, did Hillary Clinton have an opinion one way or the other in regards to unions? How do her views then, when she was in a position to positively affect the policies of the corporation, compare to her views now, as she runs for president? The answer is that she and her supporters do not want to talk about it because the two positions are inconsistent. It's that simple, and I don't think it's damning enough to consider her unfit for president. But it does certainly support the perception that the Clintons are more conservative and more big business-friendly than her rivals.
posted by billysumday at 8:36 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
To go on, 'business friendly = human unfriendly' W. T. F?
Who said that? I feel like you're being hyperbolic now.
Sixth post in.
posted by Snyder at 8:43 AM on January 31, 2008
Who said that? I feel like you're being hyperbolic now.
Sixth post in.
posted by Snyder at 8:43 AM on January 31, 2008
To go on, 'business friendly = human unfriendly' W. T. F?
Who said that? I feel like you're being hyperbolic now.
Sixth post in.
Ah, I see. Touche. Well, I don't support that notion, and to conflate the notion that just because I disagree with Wal-Mart on certain issues means that I personally am anti-business is sort of silly. Wal-Mart has a long way to go until it's as responsible a business as, say, Costco (to name one company in the same ballpark), and I hope they get there sooner rather than later.
posted by billysumday at 8:49 AM on January 31, 2008
Who said that? I feel like you're being hyperbolic now.
Sixth post in.
Ah, I see. Touche. Well, I don't support that notion, and to conflate the notion that just because I disagree with Wal-Mart on certain issues means that I personally am anti-business is sort of silly. Wal-Mart has a long way to go until it's as responsible a business as, say, Costco (to name one company in the same ballpark), and I hope they get there sooner rather than later.
posted by billysumday at 8:49 AM on January 31, 2008
Wow, you guys seem to be putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head.
there's no way that can be interpreted as putting words in your mouth and i get a little tired of people saying that when it isn't happening
as far as putting thoughts in your head is concerned, i thought that was the point of language and communication
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 AM on January 31, 2008
there's no way that can be interpreted as putting words in your mouth and i get a little tired of people saying that when it isn't happening
as far as putting thoughts in your head is concerned, i thought that was the point of language and communication
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 AM on January 31, 2008
Okay, okay, okay, pyramid termite. I bow to your lowercase skillz of pedantic debate. But just to get this out there, you do state that I am "missing" the fact that mom and pop stores don't treat their workers better than Wal-Mart. I never implied that in any of my previous comments and in actuality I completely understand the myth of the mom and pop general store and also the benefits that a Wal-Mart can bring to a community. However, I can still hope for a better Wal-Mart, spefically one that treats it workers more fairly. Si se puede! Arriba!
posted by billysumday at 8:57 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by billysumday at 8:57 AM on January 31, 2008
actually, what he and everyone else seems to miss is that walmart's competition, including the mom and pop stores they put out of business, don't treat people any better and sometimes treat them worse
Also, in another comment upthread, I gave a specific example of a Wal-Mart competitor that treat their employees much better - Costco. Hardly a mom and pop store, that.
posted by billysumday at 9:02 AM on January 31, 2008
Also, in another comment upthread, I gave a specific example of a Wal-Mart competitor that treat their employees much better - Costco. Hardly a mom and pop store, that.
posted by billysumday at 9:02 AM on January 31, 2008
Politicians are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:05 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:05 AM on January 31, 2008
Politicians are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living.
Enlightening!
posted by billysumday at 9:07 AM on January 31, 2008
Enlightening!
posted by billysumday at 9:07 AM on January 31, 2008
the simple fact of the matter is that people mention walmart and the reaction is that they're somehow different than everyone else
and yes, i did say you missed it because even now when you admit it, you're treating it as if it's some kind of pedantry
if you're working for meijer's or k-mart or sears, it's NOT pedantry, it's your reality
the issue ought to be how retail workers are treated in this country, period, not just how wal-mart treats them - and yeah, you were missing this - you can't even admit it without being snarky about it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:16 AM on January 31, 2008
and yes, i did say you missed it because even now when you admit it, you're treating it as if it's some kind of pedantry
if you're working for meijer's or k-mart or sears, it's NOT pedantry, it's your reality
the issue ought to be how retail workers are treated in this country, period, not just how wal-mart treats them - and yeah, you were missing this - you can't even admit it without being snarky about it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:16 AM on January 31, 2008
billysumday: "But you cannot export some jobs, like the cashier at Wal-Mart, the stockboy at Wal-Mart, the manager at Wal-Mart."
I think you can export, or eliminate, more of those jobs than you might imagine.
A lot of stocking could be replaced by packing goods into ready-to-sell pallets at the point of origin, then you just have to sit the thing down with a forklift and rip off the wrapping. It'd make every store look like Costco, but the success of WalMart shows that Americans care more about price than the shopping experience anyway.
Cashiers are a dying breed; the self-checkout systems we have now are primitive and represent only the beginning of that technology. New systems will use RFID tags to scan purchases and charge you without all the manual barcode-reading. All you'll really need is a security guard and somebody to occasionally reboot the machines.
Management may be safer in the short run but with fewer people to manage there's less and less demand for them as well. Plus once you've gotten all the procedures hammered out by consultants, "management" at the retail level quickly devolves into nothing more than flipping to the right page in a binder and following the steps.
I'm not saying that there won't always be some jobs around, but I wouldn't always assume that they'll be enough to run an economy on. A lot of longshoremen thought that just because trade was increasing, that they'd always have jobs at the port. Containerization showed them how few of them were actually required to do much, much more work. Those same kinds of advances could befall much of the U.S. workforce if we don't train people to do useful and productive things.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2008
I think you can export, or eliminate, more of those jobs than you might imagine.
A lot of stocking could be replaced by packing goods into ready-to-sell pallets at the point of origin, then you just have to sit the thing down with a forklift and rip off the wrapping. It'd make every store look like Costco, but the success of WalMart shows that Americans care more about price than the shopping experience anyway.
Cashiers are a dying breed; the self-checkout systems we have now are primitive and represent only the beginning of that technology. New systems will use RFID tags to scan purchases and charge you without all the manual barcode-reading. All you'll really need is a security guard and somebody to occasionally reboot the machines.
Management may be safer in the short run but with fewer people to manage there's less and less demand for them as well. Plus once you've gotten all the procedures hammered out by consultants, "management" at the retail level quickly devolves into nothing more than flipping to the right page in a binder and following the steps.
I'm not saying that there won't always be some jobs around, but I wouldn't always assume that they'll be enough to run an economy on. A lot of longshoremen thought that just because trade was increasing, that they'd always have jobs at the port. Containerization showed them how few of them were actually required to do much, much more work. Those same kinds of advances could befall much of the U.S. workforce if we don't train people to do useful and productive things.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2008
the simple fact of the matter is that people mention walmart and the reaction is that they're somehow different than everyone else
Well, I'm telling you that Wal-Mart differs from certain similar businesses. I named Costco above.
if you're working for meijer's or k-mart or sears, it's NOT pedantry, it's your reality
Agreed. And if HRC had been on the board of K-Mart and done nothing to improve the lives of its workers, I think I'd be similarly disappointed.
the issue ought to be how retail workers are treated in this country, period, not just how wal-mart treats them - and yeah, you were missing this - you can't even admit it without being snarky about it
The post was about Wal-Mart and Hillary Clinton. If someone posts about Hillary Clinton and the retail workers of America, I'll discuss that.
posted by billysumday at 9:26 AM on January 31, 2008
Well, I'm telling you that Wal-Mart differs from certain similar businesses. I named Costco above.
if you're working for meijer's or k-mart or sears, it's NOT pedantry, it's your reality
Agreed. And if HRC had been on the board of K-Mart and done nothing to improve the lives of its workers, I think I'd be similarly disappointed.
the issue ought to be how retail workers are treated in this country, period, not just how wal-mart treats them - and yeah, you were missing this - you can't even admit it without being snarky about it
The post was about Wal-Mart and Hillary Clinton. If someone posts about Hillary Clinton and the retail workers of America, I'll discuss that.
posted by billysumday at 9:26 AM on January 31, 2008
exactly who in the Union is benefiting from the fees? Who exactly is profiting from the workers?
Two brief sideways examples: The Ontario Teachers' Federation is a co-sponsor of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, an 'independent' corporation with over $100 billion in assets. The Manitoba Federation of Labour was a sponsor of the disastrously mismanaged Crocus fund, whose board of directors included several MFL reps. Follow zee money.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2008
Two brief sideways examples: The Ontario Teachers' Federation is a co-sponsor of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, an 'independent' corporation with over $100 billion in assets. The Manitoba Federation of Labour was a sponsor of the disastrously mismanaged Crocus fund, whose board of directors included several MFL reps. Follow zee money.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2008
Unions seem to still be pretty split over which Democrat they're backing.
I was forced to join a union, and it sucks in the following ways:
Labor in the U.S. owes a lot to the historic efforts of organized labor, in the following ways:
1. protections from job hazards
2. pensions
3. overtime pay
4. job security
5. paid vacations
6. illegal child labor
7. 8-hour workday
8. 5-day workweek
Does everyone have all of those? No. I don't, either. But if it wasn't for organized labor, these things would not have become normal and expected. Paying labor dues may suck, but not being able to benefit from all the work unions have done would suck more. And I do think we are seeing an erosion of those benefits as unions decline in influence.
My great-grandmama was a sharecropper, and then more of a migrant farm worker, before she and my granddaddy moved to the city to work in factories. Grandmama didn't just join the union in the 40s, she became a union rep. She'll probably vote for Clinton if she votes in the primaries because she's a traditional Democrat from back when the southeast was more agricultural and a Democratic stronghold, and that's who Clinton appeals to. But I haven't talked to her lately-- maybe she likes Obama. Much of the family swung Republican in 2000 and 2004, due to a growing Southern Baptist influence, but only Diebold could get Grandmama to vote Republican.
My Dad is strangely enamoured with McCain and has been for years, but I will do my best to convince him otherwise if McCain wins the nomination. Most because McCain is a Republican, but also because I think he's a Cylon.
posted by Tehanu at 9:31 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
I was forced to join a union, and it sucks in the following ways:
Labor in the U.S. owes a lot to the historic efforts of organized labor, in the following ways:
1. protections from job hazards
2. pensions
3. overtime pay
4. job security
5. paid vacations
6. illegal child labor
7. 8-hour workday
8. 5-day workweek
Does everyone have all of those? No. I don't, either. But if it wasn't for organized labor, these things would not have become normal and expected. Paying labor dues may suck, but not being able to benefit from all the work unions have done would suck more. And I do think we are seeing an erosion of those benefits as unions decline in influence.
My great-grandmama was a sharecropper, and then more of a migrant farm worker, before she and my granddaddy moved to the city to work in factories. Grandmama didn't just join the union in the 40s, she became a union rep. She'll probably vote for Clinton if she votes in the primaries because she's a traditional Democrat from back when the southeast was more agricultural and a Democratic stronghold, and that's who Clinton appeals to. But I haven't talked to her lately-- maybe she likes Obama. Much of the family swung Republican in 2000 and 2004, due to a growing Southern Baptist influence, but only Diebold could get Grandmama to vote Republican.
My Dad is strangely enamoured with McCain and has been for years, but I will do my best to convince him otherwise if McCain wins the nomination. Most because McCain is a Republican, but also because I think he's a Cylon.
posted by Tehanu at 9:31 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
Pastabagel, I think you overestimate the impact of wages on production costs and the impact of production costs in profits. Many of those factories would have closed even if the workers had started paying for the privilege of working (heck, that is exactly what happens in some industries which are heavily subsidised by the public to keep the jobs).
To keep its capital, a company must not just be profitable, but more profitable than the basic interest rates.
To be profitable, this company needs to have a product that sells, in enough quantity, with a sufficient profit margin.
To have that profit margin, the company needs to keep its production costs sufficiently below the market rate for its products. And to keep the production costs low, wages are an important factor, but logistics, production engineering and raw material costs too.
Not one factory closes merely because the wages are high. I doubt that Toyota's workers earn less than the Big Three's. But Detroit has, compared to Toyota, crap products nobody wants, inefficient logistics, and poor production engineering. Therefore it bleeds money and closes factories. Period.
posted by Skeptic at 9:31 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
To keep its capital, a company must not just be profitable, but more profitable than the basic interest rates.
To be profitable, this company needs to have a product that sells, in enough quantity, with a sufficient profit margin.
To have that profit margin, the company needs to keep its production costs sufficiently below the market rate for its products. And to keep the production costs low, wages are an important factor, but logistics, production engineering and raw material costs too.
Not one factory closes merely because the wages are high. I doubt that Toyota's workers earn less than the Big Three's. But Detroit has, compared to Toyota, crap products nobody wants, inefficient logistics, and poor production engineering. Therefore it bleeds money and closes factories. Period.
posted by Skeptic at 9:31 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
billysumday,
I know you didn't say that, I was referencing a different post and didn't make that clear.
Listen, there are two sides to everything. I know the history and benefits of unions, but I've also had dealing with them where its ridiculous - e.g You can't plug that PC in, you need to get someone from the electrician's union. Its not hyperbole, its fact. They often over-reach, and often are corrupt. Not all sweetness and light. Obviously, they've served a great purpose in history and are still needed.
I also have to admit, that the seeming pervasiveness of the 'anti-business' vs the romanticized notion of the 'working-class' thought process around here gets a bit tiresome, and to me, is symptomatic of a general intellectual laziness and inability/lack of desire to understand any nuance in complex issues. I'm sorry if I sound 'superior', I don't have the words to put it any better, and I'm surely guilty of this as much as anyone else.
Ah, the problem with Western culture, and oh yeah, get off my lawn.
posted by sfts2 at 9:36 AM on January 31, 2008
I know you didn't say that, I was referencing a different post and didn't make that clear.
Listen, there are two sides to everything. I know the history and benefits of unions, but I've also had dealing with them where its ridiculous - e.g You can't plug that PC in, you need to get someone from the electrician's union. Its not hyperbole, its fact. They often over-reach, and often are corrupt. Not all sweetness and light. Obviously, they've served a great purpose in history and are still needed.
I also have to admit, that the seeming pervasiveness of the 'anti-business' vs the romanticized notion of the 'working-class' thought process around here gets a bit tiresome, and to me, is symptomatic of a general intellectual laziness and inability/lack of desire to understand any nuance in complex issues. I'm sorry if I sound 'superior', I don't have the words to put it any better, and I'm surely guilty of this as much as anyone else.
Ah, the problem with Western culture, and oh yeah, get off my lawn.
posted by sfts2 at 9:36 AM on January 31, 2008
you might be missing the fact that a great number of the sainted working class shop there and benefit from their exceedingly low prices. Does that offset ANYTHING?
That's a myth. WalMart pretty much savages the local economies that enrich it.
Wal Mart does keep prices low, but in that they are often the largest employers in the communities in which they have a presence, often they have exert the same downward pressure on local wages. On top of that, they get to keep the sales taxes they colllect which would otherwise be spent on local and state services AND their profits go to the Walton family and the company's shareholders. Even if Mom & Pop stores have slightly higher prices, their income is often redistributed in the communities they inhabit, rather than siphoned back to Little Rock.
posted by psmealey at 9:37 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
That's a myth. WalMart pretty much savages the local economies that enrich it.
Wal Mart does keep prices low, but in that they are often the largest employers in the communities in which they have a presence, often they have exert the same downward pressure on local wages. On top of that, they get to keep the sales taxes they colllect which would otherwise be spent on local and state services AND their profits go to the Walton family and the company's shareholders. Even if Mom & Pop stores have slightly higher prices, their income is often redistributed in the communities they inhabit, rather than siphoned back to Little Rock.
posted by psmealey at 9:37 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
Partisan talking points. Woo! This is what I come to metafilter for.
posted by srboisvert at 9:51 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 9:51 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
PS, ps Why do you leave out the fact that in your linked article, the main premise is that people disagree about the economic effect of Wal-Mart? You assert that they 'savage' economies. I assert that they don't - that much. No one wins when things are not efficient. Wal-Mart is efficient, maybe they have downsides which offset that for a net negative, but its at least arguable.
posted by sfts2 at 9:53 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by sfts2 at 9:53 AM on January 31, 2008
"[Shareholders] are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
posted by Bummus at 9:59 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Bummus at 9:59 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
I linked to article as a cite for the tax break deal (though, that's fairly commonly known at this point.
Walmart efficiently distributes cheap goods and then efficiently redistributes local wealth back to itself, but that's pretty much it. From the perspective of WalMart and its shareholders, its practices have a very positive effect. From a local perspective (skimming much needed tax dollars from local communities, putting local businesses under due to what are essentially dumping practices and putting downward pressure on wages), WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative.
Basically the economics are pretty straightforward. Any time you establish a new major retailer (the last step in the value chain) in a community, at best, the effect will be a net wash. If you really want to bring prosperity to an area where you can capitalize on low wages and create wealth, then build a plant or distribution facility of some kind. What WalMart is doing depresses those economies.
posted by psmealey at 10:04 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Walmart efficiently distributes cheap goods and then efficiently redistributes local wealth back to itself, but that's pretty much it. From the perspective of WalMart and its shareholders, its practices have a very positive effect. From a local perspective (skimming much needed tax dollars from local communities, putting local businesses under due to what are essentially dumping practices and putting downward pressure on wages), WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative.
Basically the economics are pretty straightforward. Any time you establish a new major retailer (the last step in the value chain) in a community, at best, the effect will be a net wash. If you really want to bring prosperity to an area where you can capitalize on low wages and create wealth, then build a plant or distribution facility of some kind. What WalMart is doing depresses those economies.
posted by psmealey at 10:04 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
The machinery of capitalism is oiled with the blood of the workers.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:20 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by kirkaracha at 10:20 AM on January 31, 2008
The machinery of capitalism is oiled with the blood of the workers.
It's that sort of detailed, complex analysis that really gets to the heart of the intricate system of global economics.
posted by billysumday at 10:22 AM on January 31, 2008
It's that sort of detailed, complex analysis that really gets to the heart of the intricate system of global economics.
posted by billysumday at 10:22 AM on January 31, 2008
At the risk of jumping on my pro-union soapbox and flailing about (which I've done many times on the Blue) let me interject my Cliff's Notes version:
1. This country is the economic superpower for one reason only:we have the largest,most successful middle class ever. That middle class came directly from the American Labor Movement. Workers rose up and took their due. If you think the bosses would have ever given them anything without a fight, I want some of what you're smoking.
2. Unions don't exist in a vacuum. There is a symbiotic relationship between unions and management. Unions cannot destroy companies all by their lonesome.
3. Organized labor benefits all workers- you don't have to be union member to benefit from higher wages and benefits negotiated by unions.
4. Wage stagnation has followed the determined union-busting of the last thirty years. Meanwhile, corporate profits have soared (as has management compensation). Coincidence? I think not, but what do I know?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:35 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
1. This country is the economic superpower for one reason only:we have the largest,most successful middle class ever. That middle class came directly from the American Labor Movement. Workers rose up and took their due. If you think the bosses would have ever given them anything without a fight, I want some of what you're smoking.
2. Unions don't exist in a vacuum. There is a symbiotic relationship between unions and management. Unions cannot destroy companies all by their lonesome.
3. Organized labor benefits all workers- you don't have to be union member to benefit from higher wages and benefits negotiated by unions.
4. Wage stagnation has followed the determined union-busting of the last thirty years. Meanwhile, corporate profits have soared (as has management compensation). Coincidence? I think not, but what do I know?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:35 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wal-Mart is efficient, maybe they have downsides which offset that for a net negative, but its at least arguable.
Classic article about Wal-Mart pricing its suppliers out of business: The Wal-Mart You Don't Know.
This bit from the linked article above is just depressing:
"President Clinton defended his wife's role on the Wal-Mart board last week after the issue was raised by Sen. Barack Obama in a CNN debate.
His wife did not try to change the company's minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said.
"We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve," President Clinton said. "
So, she didn't bother to try to change anything about how Wal-Mart feels about unions because Arkansas has traditionally been weak on unions? That's a really lame excuse. Interesting that Bill still finds a way to promote himself in that strange little rebuttal.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Classic article about Wal-Mart pricing its suppliers out of business: The Wal-Mart You Don't Know.
This bit from the linked article above is just depressing:
"President Clinton defended his wife's role on the Wal-Mart board last week after the issue was raised by Sen. Barack Obama in a CNN debate.
His wife did not try to change the company's minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said.
"We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve," President Clinton said. "
So, she didn't bother to try to change anything about how Wal-Mart feels about unions because Arkansas has traditionally been weak on unions? That's a really lame excuse. Interesting that Bill still finds a way to promote himself in that strange little rebuttal.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative.
People who aren't frothing at the mouth see the issue a bit differently.
"(T)here are conclusions both damning and supportive of Wal-Mart. This is the likely source of the debate’s din: When there is doubt or disagreement, talk louder."
posted by Kwantsar at 10:50 AM on January 31, 2008
People who aren't frothing at the mouth see the issue a bit differently.
"(T)here are conclusions both damning and supportive of Wal-Mart. This is the likely source of the debate’s din: When there is doubt or disagreement, talk louder."
posted by Kwantsar at 10:50 AM on January 31, 2008
It's that sort of detailed, complex analysis that really gets to the heart of the intricate system of global economics.
Economic theories are the opiate of the wealthy.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:59 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Economic theories are the opiate of the wealthy.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:59 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Thanks for chopping my sentence in half, presenting it out of context and saying that I'm frothing at the mouth, dick.
posted by psmealey at 11:00 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by psmealey at 11:00 AM on January 31, 2008
When I was a kid my dad was in a union. When he died his pension from the union basically kept us from losing our house. Times changed, but the union kept cutting us a check, kept their promise to my dad even though he was gone. Never heard a peep from any of the outfits he’d worked for.
Couple years later, we’re struggling, holding on to the house by our fingernails, my mom is working two jobs plus seasonal work, I’m working whenever I’m off school and practice and picking up a bit of side money teaching martial arts and fitness (atypical - very, very nice instructor), but hey, I’m the son of a highly decorated veteran. I get my college tuition subsidized because of a long standing program for veterans - oh, no wait, let’s let the ‘free market’ decide the government says less than a year before I’m heading off to school, revoking their promise to my dad, and cutting that program.
I guess all of us widow’s sons were really chiseling in our fathers military service and bringing down the state of college education.
Ok, so now I’m looking at how to get grants. We’re not making much money, but hey, we own a house, so we’re not *really* poor (even though we’re borrowing money and meals from relatives). I’m looking at the military as an option (ROTC, et.al) to pay for school. A union rep - comes to our house - and says the union will pay for my school if I go into a trade.
In retrospect, maybe I should have gone for it. But I remember my dad working in the freezing cold and his hands raw and sore. He always wanted me to go to college and not have to do what he did for a living. (I don’t think he wanted me to serve either. But I would have been a lousy architect or contractor or something. I’m pretty handy when it’s my stuff. But it takes me three hours to hang a picture, b/c I’m a perfectionist. So I’d probably be starving now.)
Meanwhile, property taxes have gone up and up and up. It’s getting tougher for my mom to maintain the house that one blue collar worker was able to buy (granted he was a hard worker and very skilled). So I’m giving her money and - and! - the union is still cutting her a check (which offsets all the taxes the politicians keep promising they want to cut but never do) because y’know, dad’s still dead and she’s still alive.
Point being - sure some unions are lousy and some are great (obviously my dad’s was) but if it comes to who I’m going to generally trust on stuff like actually giving a shit about you when you’re powerless to do anything about it if they hose you, my past experience leads me to believe the union men over business or the government.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:01 AM on January 31, 2008 [9 favorites]
Couple years later, we’re struggling, holding on to the house by our fingernails, my mom is working two jobs plus seasonal work, I’m working whenever I’m off school and practice and picking up a bit of side money teaching martial arts and fitness (atypical - very, very nice instructor), but hey, I’m the son of a highly decorated veteran. I get my college tuition subsidized because of a long standing program for veterans - oh, no wait, let’s let the ‘free market’ decide the government says less than a year before I’m heading off to school, revoking their promise to my dad, and cutting that program.
I guess all of us widow’s sons were really chiseling in our fathers military service and bringing down the state of college education.
Ok, so now I’m looking at how to get grants. We’re not making much money, but hey, we own a house, so we’re not *really* poor (even though we’re borrowing money and meals from relatives). I’m looking at the military as an option (ROTC, et.al) to pay for school. A union rep - comes to our house - and says the union will pay for my school if I go into a trade.
In retrospect, maybe I should have gone for it. But I remember my dad working in the freezing cold and his hands raw and sore. He always wanted me to go to college and not have to do what he did for a living. (I don’t think he wanted me to serve either. But I would have been a lousy architect or contractor or something. I’m pretty handy when it’s my stuff. But it takes me three hours to hang a picture, b/c I’m a perfectionist. So I’d probably be starving now.)
Meanwhile, property taxes have gone up and up and up. It’s getting tougher for my mom to maintain the house that one blue collar worker was able to buy (granted he was a hard worker and very skilled). So I’m giving her money and - and! - the union is still cutting her a check (which offsets all the taxes the politicians keep promising they want to cut but never do) because y’know, dad’s still dead and she’s still alive.
Point being - sure some unions are lousy and some are great (obviously my dad’s was) but if it comes to who I’m going to generally trust on stuff like actually giving a shit about you when you’re powerless to do anything about it if they hose you, my past experience leads me to believe the union men over business or the government.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:01 AM on January 31, 2008 [9 favorites]
"We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve," President Clinton said.
Wow. He sort of spells it out for us, doesn't he? And I'm sure I'm not going to change any minds here, but this quote just really sticks out for me. This I think is the heart of the post and is at the heart of the criticisms people have of Clinton. After Obama graduated from Harvard Law, he goes to the south side Chicago where he makes a pittance, organizing members in the community to seek to improve the living and working conditions of mostly poor African-Americans living in government housing. Hillary makes a healthy salary as a corporate lawyer, then sits on the board of Wal-Mart and claims to have her hands tied when it comes to standing up for progressive issues. What a fighter she is!
posted by billysumday at 11:04 AM on January 31, 2008 [5 favorites]
Wow. He sort of spells it out for us, doesn't he? And I'm sure I'm not going to change any minds here, but this quote just really sticks out for me. This I think is the heart of the post and is at the heart of the criticisms people have of Clinton. After Obama graduated from Harvard Law, he goes to the south side Chicago where he makes a pittance, organizing members in the community to seek to improve the living and working conditions of mostly poor African-Americans living in government housing. Hillary makes a healthy salary as a corporate lawyer, then sits on the board of Wal-Mart and claims to have her hands tied when it comes to standing up for progressive issues. What a fighter she is!
posted by billysumday at 11:04 AM on January 31, 2008 [5 favorites]
Everyone working in the US (legally) owes a debt of gratitude to the unions and their many fights for fairness and reduction of exploitation in the workplace. Unions have gotten a bad name lately, because a lot of people think all unions are mobbed up, or that they are imposing impossible conditions on the poor corporations. There has been a coordinated PR and economic attack on unions by the executive branch and right-leaning commentators for the last few decades, and it hasn't done anyone any good except for the corporate fat cats who get to reap greater profits. Unions are no longer viewed as red-blooded bastions of the American Way, but rather as "parasites" that drain the life from these greedy, socially irresponsible corporations and their shareholders. It is a disgrace, the way unions and their membership are treated these days. Even so, the few union positions available in Philadelphia (IBEW, carpenters, etc) are coveted, because membership in a union offers much more than the opportunity to pick your nose at Home Depot for $7 an hour.
posted by Mister_A at 11:14 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by Mister_A at 11:14 AM on January 31, 2008
Again, not to let more precise facts get in the way of a spirited discussion, but to present Clinton as an 'enemy' of labor probably misses the mark.
posted by sfts2 at 11:14 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by sfts2 at 11:14 AM on January 31, 2008
Thanks for chopping my sentence in half, presenting it out of context and saying that I'm frothing at the mouth, dick.
Well, I pulled it out of context a little bit, but it's a pretty minimal offense.
The full paragraph:
Walmart efficiently distributes cheap goods and then efficiently redistributes local wealth back to itself, but that's pretty much it. From the perspective of WalMart and its shareholders, its practices have a very positive effect. From a local perspective (skimming much needed tax dollars from local communities, putting local businesses under due to what are essentially dumping practices and putting downward pressure on wages), WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative.
I shortened it to "WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative", when I should have shortened it to "From a local perspective... WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative."
But even that is a stupid, stupid sentiment-- as Wal-Mart's effect from a local perspective is quite ambiguous. The economics are most certainly not "straightforward," despite your poorly-sourced claims.
Dick.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:15 AM on January 31, 2008
Well, I pulled it out of context a little bit, but it's a pretty minimal offense.
The full paragraph:
Walmart efficiently distributes cheap goods and then efficiently redistributes local wealth back to itself, but that's pretty much it. From the perspective of WalMart and its shareholders, its practices have a very positive effect. From a local perspective (skimming much needed tax dollars from local communities, putting local businesses under due to what are essentially dumping practices and putting downward pressure on wages), WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative.
I shortened it to "WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative", when I should have shortened it to "From a local perspective... WalMart's effect is unambiguously negative."
But even that is a stupid, stupid sentiment-- as Wal-Mart's effect from a local perspective is quite ambiguous. The economics are most certainly not "straightforward," despite your poorly-sourced claims.
Dick.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:15 AM on January 31, 2008
You might agree that when you chop someone's sentence off and present it as the full thought, and then spew some condescending bullshit without making a counterclaim of your own as marginally dickish behavior, wouldn't you? If not, then I withdraw my dick.
That said, you honestly think it's stupid, stupid to claim that the siphoning off of local taxes (which also gives WalMart an artificial price advantage), putting downward pressure on wages AND sending profits to the home office (that arguably mom and pops would have been recirculated into the local economy) is unambiguously bad for the local economy? We can agree that there's probably a lot more at work at a larger perspective, at a national level there may be some other positives, but it seems pretty clear that the people that live in these areas are getting screwed.
posted by psmealey at 11:26 AM on January 31, 2008
That said, you honestly think it's stupid, stupid to claim that the siphoning off of local taxes (which also gives WalMart an artificial price advantage), putting downward pressure on wages AND sending profits to the home office (that arguably mom and pops would have been recirculated into the local economy) is unambiguously bad for the local economy? We can agree that there's probably a lot more at work at a larger perspective, at a national level there may be some other positives, but it seems pretty clear that the people that live in these areas are getting screwed.
posted by psmealey at 11:26 AM on January 31, 2008
But even that is a stupid, stupid sentiment-- as Wal-Mart's effect from a local perspective is quite ambiguous.
thanks, guys, for elevating the discourse. if only i'd realized sooner that thinking of walmart's effects from a local perspective as unambiguously negative was a stupid, stupid sentiment. the debate definitely needs some more of that kind of rigor.
on a tangential note, this nation op-ed offers an interesting perspective on the substantial differences between the democratic front-runners, and explores the question of why so many on the more progressive end of the spectrum have aligned with clinton, given her much weaker record on progressive issues.
personally, i'm kind of disgusted with the way pundits all around insist that there aren't any substantial differences in the policy positions of clinton and obama. there are huge differences in their stated policy positions!
as far as the iraq war is concerned, clinton has pledged only to put together a panel of experts to explore the possibility of beginning to pull combat forces out within 60 days of being elected, while obama has committed to pulling combat forces on a phased withdrawal schedule that will conclude within 16 months of his taking office.
on health care, clinton proposes making private health insurance plans mandatory for all american citizens, with tax rebates at the end of the year to offset the expenses. now imagine, for a second, how this will actually play out: just as car owners and mortgage holders are required to obtain policies and provide proof of insurance on their automobiles and homes, all americans under clinton's plan will presumably be required to obtain and provide proof of having private health insurance. clinton is mum on the subject of exactly how she expects to bring current health insurance policy rates down in the short-term, since she offers no publicly funded health plan to compete with the private carriers. what's more, as far as i can tell, apart from end-of-the-year tax rebates, her plan doesn't offer any immediate relief from the monthly out-of-pocket expenses americans will be required to pay on their now mandatory health insurance policies.
i'm sure her plan makes some additional accommodations for people on the very bottom of the income ladder, but this looks like a recipe for a middle-class income squeeze to me. plus, since the inconsistent quality of care the private plan providers currently offer is a major part of the problem with the american health care system, only the insurance industry really seems to see any immediate benefit under the plan, since they'll now see a massive influx of new policyholders, which presumably will allow them to better manage their own financial risk.
anyone with better information on this than i have, please correct any omissions or factual inaccuracies in my presentation of this information. it's not my intent to obscure the real issues, but this is what i've been able to glean from my own analysis of clinton and obama's official, stated proposals.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:52 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
thanks, guys, for elevating the discourse. if only i'd realized sooner that thinking of walmart's effects from a local perspective as unambiguously negative was a stupid, stupid sentiment. the debate definitely needs some more of that kind of rigor.
on a tangential note, this nation op-ed offers an interesting perspective on the substantial differences between the democratic front-runners, and explores the question of why so many on the more progressive end of the spectrum have aligned with clinton, given her much weaker record on progressive issues.
personally, i'm kind of disgusted with the way pundits all around insist that there aren't any substantial differences in the policy positions of clinton and obama. there are huge differences in their stated policy positions!
as far as the iraq war is concerned, clinton has pledged only to put together a panel of experts to explore the possibility of beginning to pull combat forces out within 60 days of being elected, while obama has committed to pulling combat forces on a phased withdrawal schedule that will conclude within 16 months of his taking office.
on health care, clinton proposes making private health insurance plans mandatory for all american citizens, with tax rebates at the end of the year to offset the expenses. now imagine, for a second, how this will actually play out: just as car owners and mortgage holders are required to obtain policies and provide proof of insurance on their automobiles and homes, all americans under clinton's plan will presumably be required to obtain and provide proof of having private health insurance. clinton is mum on the subject of exactly how she expects to bring current health insurance policy rates down in the short-term, since she offers no publicly funded health plan to compete with the private carriers. what's more, as far as i can tell, apart from end-of-the-year tax rebates, her plan doesn't offer any immediate relief from the monthly out-of-pocket expenses americans will be required to pay on their now mandatory health insurance policies.
i'm sure her plan makes some additional accommodations for people on the very bottom of the income ladder, but this looks like a recipe for a middle-class income squeeze to me. plus, since the inconsistent quality of care the private plan providers currently offer is a major part of the problem with the american health care system, only the insurance industry really seems to see any immediate benefit under the plan, since they'll now see a massive influx of new policyholders, which presumably will allow them to better manage their own financial risk.
anyone with better information on this than i have, please correct any omissions or factual inaccuracies in my presentation of this information. it's not my intent to obscure the real issues, but this is what i've been able to glean from my own analysis of clinton and obama's official, stated proposals.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:52 AM on January 31, 2008 [2 favorites]
or, less ambiguously on iraq: "clinton has pledged only to put together a panel of experts within 60 days of being elected to explore the possibility of beginning to pull combat forces out..."
posted by saulgoodman at 11:54 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by saulgoodman at 11:54 AM on January 31, 2008
Ah. Yes.
Here it is. The civil MetaFilter we all claimed we wanted at work.
Bravo boys. Bravo.
posted by tkchrist at 12:18 PM on January 31, 2008
Here it is. The civil MetaFilter we all claimed we wanted at work.
Bravo boys. Bravo.
posted by tkchrist at 12:18 PM on January 31, 2008
My fault. I apologize for dropping the d-bomb on Kwantsar, both to him and to everyone else. It was inexcusable.
posted by psmealey at 12:23 PM on January 31, 2008
posted by psmealey at 12:23 PM on January 31, 2008
I made quite a counterclaim. I linked to this, which shows a mixed bag of evidence, wherein some economists have found that due to the entry of a Wal-Mart that new hires in the retail sector saw a roughly 50-cents-an-hour increase, and that Wal-Mart raised local retail and possibly even nonretail employment.
The link also shows that other studies have found the opposite effect. My point, to restate, is that the case is not nearly as unambiguous as you make it to be.
I apologize too, to psmealey, but the rest of you can go fuck yourselves.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:33 PM on January 31, 2008
The link also shows that other studies have found the opposite effect. My point, to restate, is that the case is not nearly as unambiguous as you make it to be.
I apologize too, to psmealey, but the rest of you can go fuck yourselves.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:33 PM on January 31, 2008
It was inexcusable.
I wouldn't have said it was "inexcusable" so much as it just wasn't nearly as entertaining as a better-crafted rhetorical beat-down might have been.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:40 PM on January 31, 2008
I wouldn't have said it was "inexcusable" so much as it just wasn't nearly as entertaining as a better-crafted rhetorical beat-down might have been.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:40 PM on January 31, 2008
wherein some economists have found that due to the entry of a Wal-Mart that new hires in the retail sector saw a roughly 50-cents-an-hour increase, and that Wal-Mart raised local retail and possibly even nonretail employment.
kwantsar: i'd like to see a more global account of the impact walmart has on local economies than this. this sounds an awful lot like the data has been cherry-picked to paint a more complex picture than actually obtains in reality. sure, there are rural communities where, by virtue of being the first major employers, walmart is at least superficially a boon to the local economy. but what about the opportunity costs associated with walmart's stranglehold on local retail? no locally-owned hardware stores cropping up, no mom and pop grocers, no small clothing boutiques, etc. how many potential community leaders and entrepreneurs are reduced to mere employees when walmart breezes into town?
or as one study puts it: by displacing the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:05 PM on January 31, 2008
kwantsar: i'd like to see a more global account of the impact walmart has on local economies than this. this sounds an awful lot like the data has been cherry-picked to paint a more complex picture than actually obtains in reality. sure, there are rural communities where, by virtue of being the first major employers, walmart is at least superficially a boon to the local economy. but what about the opportunity costs associated with walmart's stranglehold on local retail? no locally-owned hardware stores cropping up, no mom and pop grocers, no small clothing boutiques, etc. how many potential community leaders and entrepreneurs are reduced to mere employees when walmart breezes into town?
or as one study puts it: by displacing the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:05 PM on January 31, 2008
'Dropping the D-bomb' really ought to be a euphemism for something more interesting.
posted by box at 1:16 PM on January 31, 2008
posted by box at 1:16 PM on January 31, 2008
So one more reason to vote for Obama? cool
posted by jeffburdges at 1:26 PM on January 31, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 1:26 PM on January 31, 2008
from saulgoodman's link:
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 1:32 PM on January 31, 2008
The overriding imperative was survival against massive odds, often with a hostile public, press or both. Like an animal caught in a trap that chews off its leg to wriggle away, the Clinton crew by the end of its tenure had hardly any limbs left to propel an agenda. The benefit of this experience, much touted by the Clintons, is that they know how to fight and how to survive. But the cost has been high: those who lived through those years are habituated to playing defense and fighting rear-guard actions. We know how progressives fared under Clintonism: they were the bloodied limbs left in the trap.this puts into words what i've always felt about the 90's and the Clintons. after a while, staying alive becomes and end unto itself, and merely treading water is "success." we need more than that, and there's an opportunity to aim higher now.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 1:32 PM on January 31, 2008
« Older excuuuuuse me! | Back to the Future Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So many things could fill in that blank.
posted by malaprohibita at 6:55 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]