|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 25 2026 18:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2026 03:35 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2026 16:34 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 24 2026 13:24 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong. The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's. This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice). Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down. If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised. The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke. Yes, I am aware of the theory behind unions. What you described is mostly applicable to private sector unions, which as I said, can be organized under bad laws and good laws. Public sector unions negotiate most often against the people they help elect, at least here in CA. Or in Chicago where was mayor was a member of the teacher's union. And in LA, the system is broke partially because there are not nearly as many students, partially because they do pay so much in retirement and benefits, and also because of mismanagement. Despite this, the workers used their bargaining power to get the district to spend money it does not have. Now, the county is threatening to take over. As I said, there is no sense of virtue, humility, or propriety among them. The fundamental power, again, of the unions, are that the workers can go on strike/quit. If the union were working against the workers' interests then the workers themselves don't have to actually go on strike, whatever the unions decide would immediately have no legs. My understanding is that teachers in parts of California that did strike, overwhelmingly voted to do so, the union is merely the organisational body through which they have done this. I don't know how well Californian teachers are paid, maybe they are being unrealistic, I don't know. Though my understanding throughout the US is that teachers are generally a poorly paid profession for it's occupational requirements of expertise/work. I would guess that Californian teachers are actually also a poorly paid profession compared to other professionals in their area (I understand pay and cost of living is higher in California), but if they are indeed overpaid, I haven't the prerequisite familiarity to disagree. But your problem seems to stem from the workers themselves making unrealistic demands than anything else. Given that the actual workers in question appear overwhelmingly in favour of these strikes (97.6% authorization vote for the San Francisco walkout according to google search), I don't see how it could be the union's fault that the teacher's are demanding more pay. Maybe the teachers have unrealistic demands, the union is just doing it's job. On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
The logic of "well it's their job to maximize shareholder value 'further the material interests of the workers'" is not something that many on the left would consider an acceptable answer in any other context. If the unions are a detriment to the citizens who pay their salaries then they need to be contained. I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation. Depends on which leftists you speak to, they are not a monolith. I would consider myself vaguely leftist (for where I am anyway, in the context of the US I'd be pretty far left). I am being exactly as skeptical of unions as I am of corporations. In that I don't have a problem with the existence or purpose of either unions or corporations. They aren't really that different. Both exist to serve the material interests of its 'shareholders'. I'm not against the existence of corporations, that economic power that it leverages exists whether or not corporations exist. "maximize shareholder value" is neither good nor bad, it's just a description of how the corporation would likely act. While I don't like with how profit gets distributed between 'ownership' and 'work'. I don't think corporations are the problem. It's an organisation leveraging a underlying power dynamic that already exists. Likewise with unions, "further material interests of workers" is neither good nor bad, it's pretty much just a description of what a union does. I am likewise not against unions, because it is leveraging an underlying power that already exists. While in the context of our societies, I would like for profits to be more distributed to 'work' over 'ownership', which generally conforms more with what unions do than corporations, this doesn't make unions fundamentally better than corporations in my mind. "Further the material interests of/maximise shareholder value" aren't really propositions you need to be agreeing or disagreeing with, they are just descriptions of what these organisations will do. Some do these badly, like unions who over-ask and all it's members lose their jobs, or corporations who end up losing their owners money. Some are corrupt, embezzlement by the leadership in both cases can exist. But fundamentally they are just expressions of an underlying leverage that already exists. Sometimes the material interest of these shareholders run contrary to 'the public good'. But I don't think these are really arguments against the organisations existing, these seem to be more of an issue of people pursuing their personal material interests over whatever the public good happens to be, which is always a difficult line to draw. It seems like you have more issue with particular people (yes, as a collective) pursuing their own personal interests above the public good, rather than the actual mechanism through which that collective power is expressed, eg a union, or a corporation, or a voting block. In this case, being against even public sector unions because public servants can ask for too much is like being against defense lawyers because rich criminals can hire really good defense lawyers to get away with crime. It sucks that they have this power, but it's not the lawyer's fault. To say you are against unions for public servants because a teacher union with overwhelming support is asking for (maybe unrealistic) higher pay, is saying you are against public school teachers having the ability to organize their collective leverage. It's a strange choice over just, maybe those teachers shouldn't be asking for more pay. Going back to:
I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation.
Are you also against corporations? In fact, lets narrow it down, are you against any corporations that receive government contracts? If not, then you are in fact more skeptical of unions than corporations. You are right that I have been very generous in assigning most of the problems to the unions and not mentioning the rank-and-file. The issue with all those words you used is that they barely apply to public sector unions. There are no price signals or a mutual understanding that an imbalanced deal ends up with no company and no jobs. There will always be teachers and I don't see a great movement to stop using taxpayer money for schools. LAUSD has hundreds of thousands fewer students than a decade ago but the payroll has expanded in that time. They demanded more of a school district that has finances that are public so everyone can see they don't have the money. Sorry, if the incentives for a teachers union are not mitigated by external factors then I require them to act in a prudent manner of their own accord. Moreover, much of that doesn't really address the problem. Union laws are not set in stone. If they are working contrary to the good of the district they serve then we change it. If we go back to your first bit, the "teachers used their power and voted for it so what does the union have to do with it" sounds like an excellent reason to abolish the union. Your talk of being "descriptive" is just besides the point unless you think there is nothing that can be done. My point of being descriptive is the whole point. You can't argue for the abolishment of a union, unless you actually advocate for laws against the establishment of that union to begin with. If you just abolish a union, then the workers will just form it again. The workers still have the power to mass strike/quit, they still, I assume, want more material benefits, the union is just organisation through which they... organise. If you abolish an organisation, but the underlying interests and power dynamics remain the same, then the same organisation will just form again under a different name. Because the role of what the union does is just that: descriptive. The constituent workers still want the same things, and still have the same leverage, individually and collectively. Any practical abolishment of public sector unions means actual laws against the formation of public sector unions to begin with. Unions don't actually have any legal powers to begin with (all their legal 'powers' are protections against union busting, eg it's illegal to stop them forming and illegal to stop workers accessing them). So in essence you are arguing against the rights of public servants to engage in collective bargaining. While I understand public services are more problematic to just 'shut down' or 'hire entirely new workforce' for, therefore giving the threat of strike/quitting more teeth than in the private sector. This seems more of a difficult problem that requires more taxpayer(eg voter/resident) involvement in the bargaining process than something that should be resolved by banning public servants from collective bargaining. Keep in mind, the employer to public servants is the tax payer. It's natural for them to be included in the bargaining process given they are paying these employees. Including into the fact, that the public servants themselves benefit from public services, this seems like the 'employers' have much more leverage than you are making them out to have. It seems to me that you are taking the burden of that bargaining off the 'employers', which would be a vector of natural resistance against the interests of the workers, and instead advocating essentially laws banning some workers from collectivizing, which is very extreme. Again, I understand it's hard to get the voting public to do anything competently together, so from a practical standpoint I can see why this would seem like a no go. But in essence you are arguing for the disenfranchisement of a section of the workforce, by legally stripping away their rights to use leverage that they already possess. I understand being against the interests of the teachers union, in essence all the taxpayers who are paying those teachers are materially in the same boat. But I don't you realize how extreme of a solution disbanding a union (in a way that makes a material difference) actually is.
Hmm perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
You seem to be turning a problem we can actually see into an abstract problem for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Public employee unions have only existed for a few decades, public employees have existed far longer. We can manage without them or yes, as I said, we can pass laws that severely restrict what they can do, if abolishing them is not politically feasible. It's just another specific benefit diffuse costs problems, part of what makes a union what it is ia the ability to organize and mobilize. Far easier to convince the taxpayers to add another 0.25% of tax on something. I am not taking the burden off the taxpayer, it is on them to vote for representatives who will tackle the problem. But in the meantime I'm not going to dust off my hands and say "well it's just a union being a union." I am in fact advocating for some of the things you mentioned.
But maybe you have point in a different way. Maybe it's far easier to contain the problem if we don't abolish the but hamper it's ability to do anything.
|
|
|
So the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been sending its officials out to do interviews, and this Sunday they sent their co-chair out to do Fox News Sunday. This month they released a new platform (see https://program.dsausa.org/) Their candidates are expected to grow with primary wins in safe Democratic seats. So she's out to explain the platform.
Abolish the Senate? True
Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them? Yep
Abolish Ice? Absolutely
Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally? As a long term plan, yep.
Defund the Pentagon? Absolutely.
Abolish prisons, at least in large part? Yeah again as part of a long term program yeah.
Government or public ownership of most large corporations. Yeah, absolutely.
This is going to be some interesting fodder against AOC & Rashida Tlaib as well as Congressional hopefuls.
|
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out.
|
Tea Party and MAGA Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have been talking about a constitutional convention for like 15 years now, doesn't seem to have cost them many votes. But IMO that's probably because the news media chose not to make a scandal out of it, since the media is overwhelmingly right-wing in the USA there's a much higher likelihood they'll raise a fuss about the DSA talking about changes to the Constitution.
|
On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. They're elected Democrats. They'll have to reconcile their organization is saying stuff that "anyone remotely sane [will] tune out." There's also at least 3 more DSA members coming into Congress in the coming months.
(The DSA captures a lot of activist energy in a Democratic playing field that has both leaders, Senator Schumer and Representative Jeffries, suffering huge drops in their popularity this year. There is a vacuum of choice apart from the DSA if you're dissatisfied with Dem leadership.)
|
AOC is not a DSA member.
I think the DSA suffers a lot from thinking that people understand what they're saying, but is essentially doing what anyone who wants change to be doing. The Tea party did the same thing for the right. Just because the DSA or tea party supported someone doesn't mean that candidate is apart of that movement. AOC is very clearly trying to stay unburdened for when it come time to run for a leadership position.
Minnesota primary is set to get really crazy. There is an allegation that angie crag asked a politician who was shot during the Minnesota assassination crisis for his endorsement while he was in the ICU. She denies it, he claims he has proof. Flanigan ostensibly would have the support of the DSA but we don't fuck with coastie leftists due to their history of fucking over legitimate socialism.
|
On July 27 2026 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
AOC is not a DSA member. Remains endorsed by the NYC Chapter of the DSA (NYC-DSA).
Hilariously, in view of GH and others' Democratic infighting and bullshit, the national organization decided that she wasn't pure enough on the Israel-Palestine issue. Sure she voted for defunding Israeli aid and declaring the war a genocide, but the measure is 100% and she's not 100%. In the national-DSA endorsement vote, she faced opposition from (try not to laugh) Red Star (Marxist-Leninist), the Marxist Unity Group, and Bread & Roses (self-described Marxist organizers).
This is why we can't have nice things.
|
On July 27 2026 05:55 dyhb wrote:Remains endorsed by the NYC Chapter of the DSA (NYC-DSA). Hilariously, in view of GH and others' Democratic infighting and bullshit, the national organization decided that she wasn't pure enough on the Israel-Palestine issue. Sure she voted for defunding Israeli aid and declaring the war a genocide, but the measure is 100% and she's not 100%. In the national-DSA endorsement vote, she faced opposition from (try not to laugh) Red Star (Marxist-Leninist), the Marxist Unity Group, and Bread & Roses (self-described Marxist organizers). This is why we can't have nice things.
I'm a bit confused. Wasn't your argument (not mine, see below) that the DSA are a bunch of lefty lunatics and they endorsed AOC, therefore she's also a lefty lunatics. A bit like how Stormfront endorsing Trump makes him a white nationalist? I get that argument, but then you immediately undercut it by saying that the endorsement isn't unanimous (and she's unendorsed) because she isn't lefty lunatic enough for a bunch of them? So can we not have nice stuff because AOCis a lefty lunatic? Or because she isn't?
That said, and here we reach the below, their program sounds quite reasonable. Their website is incredibly cringe, and looks like it's written by Marxist-Leninists for Marxist-Leninists. It's a bit surreal. But their actual policy points are about par for the course for most European socialist parties and I happily throw my support behind it. Big fan of demilitarizing the police and ending for-profit prisons and mass incarceration. This sounds very reasonable:
Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police.
A green new deal is what I hoped Europe would finally be ready for with the heat waves and forest fires demonstrating the extreme negative effects of climate change on our society right now. We're a bit ahead of the US, but everywhere needs to wake the fuck up and think a bit more about how jobs can be protected while we transition to a sustainable economy. So fully agree with
Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels. Reclaim and repair our earth's resources for all.
And I'm a big fan of a bunch more stuff there. Big fan of international mobility and ending the concept of illegal migration. Big fan of ending the wars in Israel and Gaza, but the US just ceasing to participate.
And it really doesn't sound that radical. Of course, these are little blurbs. It isn't a policy. A policy based on that is more like what Sumar has (as well as a website that doesn't look like it's what Hollywood imagines Lenin would've created as a website if he were alive today). But I'll save you the 55 page PDF in Spanish. Fringe left lunatics? Perhaps, but they're in a coalition government in Spain and Spain is having an economic boom right now (probably not a sustainable one, but it definitely seems brighter than France or Germany atm).
|
On July 27 2026 08:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 05:55 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
AOC is not a DSA member. Remains endorsed by the NYC Chapter of the DSA (NYC-DSA). Hilariously, in view of GH and others' Democratic infighting and bullshit, the national organization decided that she wasn't pure enough on the Israel-Palestine issue. Sure she voted for defunding Israeli aid and declaring the war a genocide, but the measure is 100% and she's not 100%. In the national-DSA endorsement vote, she faced opposition from (try not to laugh) Red Star (Marxist-Leninist), the Marxist Unity Group, and Bread & Roses (self-described Marxist organizers). This is why we can't have nice things. I'm a bit confused. Wasn't your argument (not mine, see below) that the DSA are a bunch of lefty lunatics and they endorsed AOC, therefore she's also a lefty lunatics. A bit like how Stormfront endorsing Trump makes him a white nationalist? I get that argument, but then you immediately undercut it by saying that the endorsement isn't unanimous (and she's unendorsed) because she isn't lefty lunatic enough for a bunch of them? So can we not have nice stuff because AOC is a lefty lunatic? Or because she isn't? The fact that the national org couldn't join with the local chapter in endorsing because of the smallest deviation from the DSA party line enhances and confirms its radical nature.
I've never needed to rely on one to prove something about the other, but maybe you can quote a past post of mine that gave you this impression.
That said, and here we reach the below, their program sounds quite reasonable. Their website is incredibly cringe, and looks like it's written by Marxist-Leninists for Marxist-Leninists. It's a bit surreal. But their actual policy points are about par for the course for most European socialist parties and I happily throw my support behind it. I'd honestly limit responses on this post to Americans that recognize that the American electorate is not the kind of electorate that votes in European socialist parties. It can be both appealing to Europeans and presenting an issue towards increased influence among Americans at the exact same time. In fact, I think I can predict the last seven presidential elections if Europeans voted in the general.
|
On July 27 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 08:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 27 2026 05:55 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
AOC is not a DSA member. Remains endorsed by the NYC Chapter of the DSA (NYC-DSA). Hilariously, in view of GH and others' Democratic infighting and bullshit, the national organization decided that she wasn't pure enough on the Israel-Palestine issue. Sure she voted for defunding Israeli aid and declaring the war a genocide, but the measure is 100% and she's not 100%. In the national-DSA endorsement vote, she faced opposition from (try not to laugh) Red Star (Marxist-Leninist), the Marxist Unity Group, and Bread & Roses (self-described Marxist organizers). This is why we can't have nice things. I'm a bit confused. Wasn't your argument (not mine, see below) that the DSA are a bunch of lefty lunatics and they endorsed AOC, therefore she's also a lefty lunatics. A bit like how Stormfront endorsing Trump makes him a white nationalist? I get that argument, but then you immediately undercut it by saying that the endorsement isn't unanimous (and she's unendorsed) because she isn't lefty lunatic enough for a bunch of them? So can we not have nice stuff because AOC is a lefty lunatic? Or because she isn't? The fact that the national org couldn't join with the local chapter in endorsing because of the smallest deviation from the DSA party line enhances and confirms its radical nature. I've never needed to rely on one to prove something about the other, but maybe you can quote a past post of mine that gave you this impression. Show nested quote +That said, and here we reach the below, their program sounds quite reasonable. Their website is incredibly cringe, and looks like it's written by Marxist-Leninists for Marxist-Leninists. It's a bit surreal. But their actual policy points are about par for the course for most European socialist parties and I happily throw my support behind it. I'd honestly limit responses on this post to Americans that recognize that the American electorate is not the kind of electorate that votes in European socialist parties. It can be both appealing to Europeans and presenting an issue towards increased influence among Americans at the exact same time. In fact, I think I can predict the last seven presidential elections if Europeans voted in the general.
Then you can admit that AOC is not apart of the DSA and is not as radical as the national chapter.
The electorate right now is voting in European-style socialist canidates; the Midwest has a real history of socialism.
You can't paint AOC with the DSA brush without also allowing Stormfront endorseing Trump to show their membership of a white supremist organization.
|
I want to believe DSA is a viable path towards non-reformist reforms. Democrats don't really have any real leadership other than to try to drag DSA supporters/politicians to objectively worse policies that Republicans wrote and will just reject and demand even shittier policy when Democrats try to cave and give them what they want.
That said, I'm pretty confident DSA will splinter into those that got sheepdogged back into being shitty Democrats and those that tried to tell them this would happen but went along anyway.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
"Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans, are the f*cking Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front. AND the People's Front of Judea! Splitters!"
|
On July 27 2026 10:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 08:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 27 2026 05:55 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
AOC is not a DSA member. Remains endorsed by the NYC Chapter of the DSA (NYC-DSA). Hilariously, in view of GH and others' Democratic infighting and bullshit, the national organization decided that she wasn't pure enough on the Israel-Palestine issue. Sure she voted for defunding Israeli aid and declaring the war a genocide, but the measure is 100% and she's not 100%. In the national-DSA endorsement vote, she faced opposition from (try not to laugh) Red Star (Marxist-Leninist), the Marxist Unity Group, and Bread & Roses (self-described Marxist organizers). This is why we can't have nice things. I'm a bit confused. Wasn't your argument (not mine, see below) that the DSA are a bunch of lefty lunatics and they endorsed AOC, therefore she's also a lefty lunatics. A bit like how Stormfront endorsing Trump makes him a white nationalist? I get that argument, but then you immediately undercut it by saying that the endorsement isn't unanimous (and she's unendorsed) because she isn't lefty lunatic enough for a bunch of them? So can we not have nice stuff because AOC is a lefty lunatic? Or because she isn't? The fact that the national org couldn't join with the local chapter in endorsing because of the smallest deviation from the DSA party line enhances and confirms its radical nature. I've never needed to rely on one to prove something about the other, but maybe you can quote a past post of mine that gave you this impression. That said, and here we reach the below, their program sounds quite reasonable. Their website is incredibly cringe, and looks like it's written by Marxist-Leninists for Marxist-Leninists. It's a bit surreal. But their actual policy points are about par for the course for most European socialist parties and I happily throw my support behind it. I'd honestly limit responses on this post to Americans that recognize that the American electorate is not the kind of electorate that votes in European socialist parties. It can be both appealing to Europeans and presenting an issue towards increased influence among Americans at the exact same time. In fact, I think I can predict the last seven presidential elections if Europeans voted in the general. Then you can admit that AOC is not apart of the DSA and is not as radical as the national chapter. She's endorsed by the chapter of the DSA that includes her district.
I only mention the national org to bring up their purity testing that reminds me of GH's positions.
The electorate right now is voting in European-style socialist canidates; the Midwest has a real history of socialism. Scattered instances of socialism, maybe, if we're being extremely kind and generous? It's hard to talk about their socialist history when it has a stronger and more lasting Republican-majority history as a region.
I already addressed the rest to Acrofales, but I'll post it again if it helps you see it:
I've never needed to rely on one to prove something about the other, but maybe you can quote a past post of mine that gave you this impression.
|
On July 26 2026 00:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2026 18:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 25 2026 03:35 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2026 16:34 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 24 2026 13:24 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong. The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's. This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice). Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down. If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised. The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke. Yes, I am aware of the theory behind unions. What you described is mostly applicable to private sector unions, which as I said, can be organized under bad laws and good laws. Public sector unions negotiate most often against the people they help elect, at least here in CA. Or in Chicago where was mayor was a member of the teacher's union. And in LA, the system is broke partially because there are not nearly as many students, partially because they do pay so much in retirement and benefits, and also because of mismanagement. Despite this, the workers used their bargaining power to get the district to spend money it does not have. Now, the county is threatening to take over. As I said, there is no sense of virtue, humility, or propriety among them. The fundamental power, again, of the unions, are that the workers can go on strike/quit. If the union were working against the workers' interests then the workers themselves don't have to actually go on strike, whatever the unions decide would immediately have no legs. My understanding is that teachers in parts of California that did strike, overwhelmingly voted to do so, the union is merely the organisational body through which they have done this. I don't know how well Californian teachers are paid, maybe they are being unrealistic, I don't know. Though my understanding throughout the US is that teachers are generally a poorly paid profession for it's occupational requirements of expertise/work. I would guess that Californian teachers are actually also a poorly paid profession compared to other professionals in their area (I understand pay and cost of living is higher in California), but if they are indeed overpaid, I haven't the prerequisite familiarity to disagree. But your problem seems to stem from the workers themselves making unrealistic demands than anything else. Given that the actual workers in question appear overwhelmingly in favour of these strikes (97.6% authorization vote for the San Francisco walkout according to google search), I don't see how it could be the union's fault that the teacher's are demanding more pay. Maybe the teachers have unrealistic demands, the union is just doing it's job. On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
The logic of "well it's their job to maximize shareholder value 'further the material interests of the workers'" is not something that many on the left would consider an acceptable answer in any other context. If the unions are a detriment to the citizens who pay their salaries then they need to be contained. I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation. Depends on which leftists you speak to, they are not a monolith. I would consider myself vaguely leftist (for where I am anyway, in the context of the US I'd be pretty far left). I am being exactly as skeptical of unions as I am of corporations. In that I don't have a problem with the existence or purpose of either unions or corporations. They aren't really that different. Both exist to serve the material interests of its 'shareholders'. I'm not against the existence of corporations, that economic power that it leverages exists whether or not corporations exist. "maximize shareholder value" is neither good nor bad, it's just a description of how the corporation would likely act. While I don't like with how profit gets distributed between 'ownership' and 'work'. I don't think corporations are the problem. It's an organisation leveraging a underlying power dynamic that already exists. Likewise with unions, "further material interests of workers" is neither good nor bad, it's pretty much just a description of what a union does. I am likewise not against unions, because it is leveraging an underlying power that already exists. While in the context of our societies, I would like for profits to be more distributed to 'work' over 'ownership', which generally conforms more with what unions do than corporations, this doesn't make unions fundamentally better than corporations in my mind. "Further the material interests of/maximise shareholder value" aren't really propositions you need to be agreeing or disagreeing with, they are just descriptions of what these organisations will do. Some do these badly, like unions who over-ask and all it's members lose their jobs, or corporations who end up losing their owners money. Some are corrupt, embezzlement by the leadership in both cases can exist. But fundamentally they are just expressions of an underlying leverage that already exists. Sometimes the material interest of these shareholders run contrary to 'the public good'. But I don't think these are really arguments against the organisations existing, these seem to be more of an issue of people pursuing their personal material interests over whatever the public good happens to be, which is always a difficult line to draw. It seems like you have more issue with particular people (yes, as a collective) pursuing their own personal interests above the public good, rather than the actual mechanism through which that collective power is expressed, eg a union, or a corporation, or a voting block. In this case, being against even public sector unions because public servants can ask for too much is like being against defense lawyers because rich criminals can hire really good defense lawyers to get away with crime. It sucks that they have this power, but it's not the lawyer's fault. To say you are against unions for public servants because a teacher union with overwhelming support is asking for (maybe unrealistic) higher pay, is saying you are against public school teachers having the ability to organize their collective leverage. It's a strange choice over just, maybe those teachers shouldn't be asking for more pay. Going back to:
I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation.
Are you also against corporations? In fact, lets narrow it down, are you against any corporations that receive government contracts? If not, then you are in fact more skeptical of unions than corporations. You are right that I have been very generous in assigning most of the problems to the unions and not mentioning the rank-and-file. The issue with all those words you used is that they barely apply to public sector unions. There are no price signals or a mutual understanding that an imbalanced deal ends up with no company and no jobs. There will always be teachers and I don't see a great movement to stop using taxpayer money for schools. LAUSD has hundreds of thousands fewer students than a decade ago but the payroll has expanded in that time. They demanded more of a school district that has finances that are public so everyone can see they don't have the money. Sorry, if the incentives for a teachers union are not mitigated by external factors then I require them to act in a prudent manner of their own accord. Moreover, much of that doesn't really address the problem. Union laws are not set in stone. If they are working contrary to the good of the district they serve then we change it. If we go back to your first bit, the "teachers used their power and voted for it so what does the union have to do with it" sounds like an excellent reason to abolish the union. Your talk of being "descriptive" is just besides the point unless you think there is nothing that can be done. My point of being descriptive is the whole point. You can't argue for the abolishment of a union, unless you actually advocate for laws against the establishment of that union to begin with. If you just abolish a union, then the workers will just form it again. The workers still have the power to mass strike/quit, they still, I assume, want more material benefits, the union is just organisation through which they... organise. If you abolish an organisation, but the underlying interests and power dynamics remain the same, then the same organisation will just form again under a different name. Because the role of what the union does is just that: descriptive. The constituent workers still want the same things, and still have the same leverage, individually and collectively. Any practical abolishment of public sector unions means actual laws against the formation of public sector unions to begin with. Unions don't actually have any legal powers to begin with (all their legal 'powers' are protections against union busting, eg it's illegal to stop them forming and illegal to stop workers accessing them). So in essence you are arguing against the rights of public servants to engage in collective bargaining. While I understand public services are more problematic to just 'shut down' or 'hire entirely new workforce' for, therefore giving the threat of strike/quitting more teeth than in the private sector. This seems more of a difficult problem that requires more taxpayer(eg voter/resident) involvement in the bargaining process than something that should be resolved by banning public servants from collective bargaining. Keep in mind, the employer to public servants is the tax payer. It's natural for them to be included in the bargaining process given they are paying these employees. Including into the fact, that the public servants themselves benefit from public services, this seems like the 'employers' have much more leverage than you are making them out to have. It seems to me that you are taking the burden of that bargaining off the 'employers', which would be a vector of natural resistance against the interests of the workers, and instead advocating essentially laws banning some workers from collectivizing, which is very extreme. Again, I understand it's hard to get the voting public to do anything competently together, so from a practical standpoint I can see why this would seem like a no go. But in essence you are arguing for the disenfranchisement of a section of the workforce, by legally stripping away their rights to use leverage that they already possess. I understand being against the interests of the teachers union, in essence all the taxpayers who are paying those teachers are materially in the same boat. But I don't you realize how extreme of a solution disbanding a union (in a way that makes a material difference) actually is. Hmm perhaps I am misunderstanding you? You seem to be turning a problem we can actually see into an abstract problem for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Public employee unions have only existed for a few decades, public employees have existed far longer. We can manage without them or yes, as I said, we can pass laws that severely restrict what they can do, if abolishing them is not politically feasible. It's just another specific benefit diffuse costs problems, part of what makes a union what it is ia the ability to organize and mobilize. Far easier to convince the taxpayers to add another 0.25% of tax on something. I am not taking the burden off the taxpayer, it is on them to vote for representatives who will tackle the problem. But in the meantime I'm not going to dust off my hands and say "well it's just a union being a union." I am in fact advocating for some of the things you mentioned. But maybe you have point in a different way. Maybe it's far easier to contain the problem if we don't abolish the but hamper it's ability to do anything.
And who will represent the interests of the workers, if you care about such things ?
|
On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members.
So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member.
No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists.
|
The fun part is, by that logic Trump is an official member of the KKK. Not that this would be a surprise and I doubt any R would care but still...
|
On July 24 2026 21:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 05:06 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump allows sponsors of 9/11 to run a nuclear programme that will include their own enrichment facilities (because he explicitly said they would buy fuel rods and don't have their own centrifuges).
If he ups his insurance of Trump Tower, I guess he really dislikes Mamdani!
Saudi Arabia did not sponsor 9/11. They are a US ally we buy oil from and sell arms to. There's no reason for them not to have nuclear power. The whole world should have nuclear power. You need centrifuges to enrich so if you're buying fuel rods it's just the opposite of enriching. Your sentence disagrees with itself. Source whatever he "explicitly said" to alleviate this. Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters) Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault.
Yes, everytime Trump says something, I at least assume the opposite is true.. most times it's so wrong however that not even that metric helps.
So if he tells us the nuclear deal with saudi arabia does not include centrifuges, the deal totally covers future centrifuges.
If he tells you they won't enrich up to weapons grade.. they probably already bought weapons grade plutonium or uranium from Pakistan, along with mid-range ballistic missles from china.
And yes, Saudi Arabia dot gov or MBS never proudly posted "We did it" on Facebook, yet however funding terror via the "golden chain" still can be read about in your own government's reports. Saudi officials had close ties with the terrorists, supported terrorism or bin Laden himself, or helped to move money to bin Laden's organization.
Saudi Arabia, MBS himself stated that Saudia Arabia will immediately try to get a nuclear bomb if iran should ever successfully test one (or is close to or is planning to).
So this "DEAL" is one giant leap for the Saudi Bomb.
Imagine China pushing their new green deal over the world.. diminishing the value of oil to a mere petrochemical use... making Saudi Arabia... poor... with a bomb.
That's basicly another Iran.
|
|
|
On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
