Weigel vs. Lilly: Endgame

David Weigel | November 18, 2008

My two final arguments with the Center for American Progress's Scott Lilly are here and here. Subjects include big labor's influence over the Democratic party, whether Obama can (and should) buck their influence, and whether the sky-high hopes for the Age of O will backfire on him.

Comments

|11.18.08 @ 11:27AM|#

David,

The lengths to which some conservatives go in trying to portray this nation's labor movement as special pleaders on behalf of unwarranted benefits for unworthy workers is truly remarkable.

Wouldn't you know it. David Weigel once again shilling for the conservatives.

|11.18.08 @ 11:55AM|#

I've got to credit Weigel for being honest enough to acknowledge that he opposes EFCA because he thinks unions are bad, rather than feigning concern about the "right" of workers to, uh, not be able to join the unions they sign up for in a reasonable length of time without harrassment from their employers.

|11.18.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Yeah it's not like organized labor/crime has a history in this country of cracking skulls or anything... Oh wait.

|11.18.08 @ 12:12PM|#

Big, scary guys who wear plaid gonna getcha, Warren!

|11.18.08 @ 12:39PM|#

I don't remember what they were wearing. All I saw was the baseball bats and crowbars they were swinging.

|11.18.08 @ 12:45PM|#

joe's blithe disregard of the value of secret ballots in the context of union elections continues to amuse.

I'm just curious to know whether a union can be decertified based on cards signed at the request of management, or whether the secret ballot suddenly becomes sacred again in that context.

|11.18.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Huh. All this time, I've been using the word "amuse" wrong.

I have very little regard to the "value" of making people who sign up to organize themselves jump through some more hoops at the behest of people who wish to stop them, while being threatened and coerced.

Which is just, like, hilarious, man.

Is there a single other private organization that needs to have its method of organizing itself dictated by people who don't want it to exist, or is there something special about unions? Oh, right, big scary guys who hit Waren with crow bars.

I know, how about every time someone wants to organize a Republican City Committee, there has to be a vote of the Republicans in that city, when the Democrats request one, held several months after the Democrats learn who wants to form the committee? But wait, there's more - the Democrats are then giving management and firing authority over the Republicans! What could possibly go wrong?

|11.18.08 @ 1:01PM|#

Anyway, once again, I've got to credit Weigel for being honest enough to acknowledge that he opposes EFCA because he thinks unions are bad, rather than feigning concern about the "right" of workers to, uh, not be able to join the unions they sign up for in a reasonable length of time without harrassment from their employers.

At least he's straight about where he's coming from, unlike most of the commentary you see on this issue.

chanceH|11.18.08 @ 1:19PM|#

so joe,

after the union forms, does the employer have the right (morally speaking) to just fire everybody who joined?

Lefiti|11.18.08 @ 1:28PM|#

Tha Weigel thinks this crap is interesting explains how he could spend so much time thinking about Ron Paul.

|11.18.08 @ 1:31PM|#

chanceH | November 18, 2008, 1:19pm | #

so joe,

after the union forms, does the employer have the right (morally speaking) to just fire everybody who joined?

And imagine, some of us are so cynical as to think that the opposition to card check is based on defending the interests of employers, and that the talk about how very much its opponents care about the rights of workers is a smokescreen!

|11.18.08 @ 1:48PM|#

I think the amusing thing about joe and unions is the way he believes that only employers ever threaten, harass, or intimidate employees, and that a union would never do so.

Like I've said in other contexts, touching naivete.

joe, I guess I am so cynical that I think that support for card check is based on defending the interests of unions, and that the talk about how very much its supporters care about the rights of workers is a smokescreen.

I fail to see how anyone who claims to want to protect employees from harassment and intimidation from any source can be opposed to secret ballots. Card check is a guarantee that workers will be "pressured" by unions, because the unions will know exactly who is voting their way and who isn't.

chanceH|11.18.08 @ 1:53PM|#

And imagine, some of us are so cynical as to think that the opposition to card check is based on defending the interests of employers, and that the talk about how very much its opponents care about the rights of workers is a smokescreen!

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTT!! wrong. man so close, but you really outhought yourself there.

the correct answer was "yes". better luck next time.

24AheadDotCom|11.18.08 @ 2:15PM|#

I missed the whole, uber-exciting series - my connection blocks URLs containing "oew", "lilly", and "weigel" for some unknown reason - but did Weigel ever discuss things like CAP's interest in bringing back the FairnessDoctrine, albeit disguised as "localism"?

(Note: I discussed their report when it first came out, but I'm too modest to point out that I was on to their game years ago.)

Ben|11.18.08 @ 3:24PM|#

You know, since some of you libertarians agree with the unions that the secret ballot is "harassment" of workers who "want to join a union" they just didn't know it until Guido showed up with his crowbar, how about doing away with secret ballot elections altogether?
I mean just have the parties distribute the ballot the way they did back in the 19th Century (when we had something like 80% voter turnout in some elections) and allow the parties to "target" their voters directly. Might even eliminate the need for so much political advertising.

Turtles|11.18.08 @ 3:59PM|#

What?

Turtle|11.18.08 @ 4:01PM|#

Let me get this straight - people want to end a secret ballot?

Rrrrrright. Imagine not having a secret ballot when voting for president.

|11.18.08 @ 4:05PM|#

Management "pressure" on employees not to form union:
"You know, if this plant goes union, we're going to have to lay a lot of people off. We might even close up shop and move to Mexico"

Union "pressure" on employees to form union:
*smashes windshield*
"If the vote goes against us we'll do the same thing to your legs"

Kalim Kassam|11.18.08 @ 8:26PM|#

Weigel: "As you say, Obama and the Democrats are going to whistle past the debt clock and spend us out of the recession. They will pass as many industry bailouts as they can summon the political will for (plenty of them). And they will do this while providing some tax cuts because every experience we've had with economic recessions tells us that's how you attack them. This is a nightmare for libertarians, but there are no Rothbardians in foxholes"

Yes, while many 'libertarians' proved the strength of their convictions when they "reluctantly" supported Paulsen's $700 billion TARP or some milder form of Keynesianism (recall Nick Gillespie's comment on Washington Week that "liquidity injections" were "necessary and proper"), it seems like the mood here at reason and amongst most libertarians was decidedly against that bailout, and is opposed the Big 3 auto industry bailout as well. Your assertion that "there are no Rotbhardians in foxholes" seems particularly absurd, a quick look through LewRockwell.com, the bastion of Rothbardianism, shows that if anything being backed into this foxhole has strengthened their convictions and determination, not caused them to compromise or withdraw from their anti-statist principles.