A friend of mine told me that his generally politically uninterested and not tech-nerdy 16 year-old daughter came home yesterday complaining about Protect-IP or SOPA, the Internet blacklist legislation. “Do you know what they’re going to to to do the Internet?” she asked. Well, according to the AFL-CIO’s testimony at yesterday’s hearing, they’re going to do the right thing:
How low was the level of debate? The hearing actually descended to statements like “the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks” (courtesy of the AFL-CIO’s Paul Almeida).
Here’s his written testimony [pdf]. I’m sure the long list of unions he cites (mostly creative, but he drags in the Fire Fighters) might think that any bill to stop piracy is a good bill, but this one is a real piece of shit (more here). What’s more, the corporate interests who are the big money behind the bill will bust a union whenever they get a chance, without thinking twice.
Similarly, the union support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, which is because AT&T is the only unionized wireless provider, is anti-consumer, since it will lead to a wireless duopoly. And will having a wireless duopoly really help unions who want to organize the wireless companies? I’m not an expert in union strategy, but an environment where corporate power is concentrated in two giant corporations usually isn’t a place where unions thrive.
I get why the AFL-CIO and CWA think these moves are in their short-term interests. But, longer term, when unions are vocally and publicly allied with corporate interests, why in the hell should young people believe that joining a union will make their lives better?
mfahey
actually duopolies are perfect environments for unions to thrive
Walker
Registry control is only possible because of the US’s hold over ICANN. It is possible this bill will motivate other countries to do an end-run around ICANN, and the US will lose all power in this area.
Boudica
My sixteen-year-old son did the same. Was something mentioned in schools yesterday?
Silly me…it must have been going around Facebook.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Boudica: Maybe homeland security is coordinating the school’s topics.
Intellectual property *spit*.
The Republic of Stupidity
I hate to admit it, but almost every time I’ve dealt w/ unions, I’ve come away feeling shat on and beaten up…
And I still tend to be pro-union, at least in theory…
I support the right to free assembly and truly believe ordinary people need some way to fight back against the power of corporations, but…
I do get tired of feeling shat upon and beaten up…
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
Sorry to be OT, but…
Yesterday, apparently, in the House’s bid to work on everything under the sun but the fuckin’ economy, passed a bill allowing a permit for concealed carry issued in one state to be valid in every single other state allowing concealed carry, despite the varying state standards for allowing such. In other words, get a permit in a super lax state, hey, you get to carry everywhere else, even if one state requires you to actually know how to use the damn thing, and the other doesn’t.
You know, States’ Rights.
4tehlulz
@Boudica: Gawker and 4chan had banners, so it might have been from one of those or other sites.
jurassicpork
#OWS=Orwell’s Wickedest Scenario by American Zen’s Mike Flannigan. A must-read neutron bomb of a post about OWS.
The Republic of Stupidity
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
Was this right to concealed carry extended to fetuses?
The Thin Black Duke
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
Maybe it’s me, but it makes me nervous when it’s easier to get a gun in this country than it is to find a job.
Roger Moore
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
Because it worked so well to legalize usury. Race to the bottom, bitches!
The Moar You Know
why in the hell should young people believe that voting will make their lives better?
why in the hell should young people believe that protesting against the 1% oligarchy will make their lives better?
See, you can do this with anything.
You know the answer to the original question as well as I do – you can either deal with management via a union, or deal with them yourself.
I hope that young people are smart enough to get past the cheap rhetorical tricks of libertarian propaganda and figure out that unions are the least worst alternative to dealing with issues of power and inequity in the workplace.
geg6
Because they actually will?
Didn’t know you had a libertarian streak, mistermix. Fuck collective bargaining, the 8-hour day, the 5-day work week, the lack of small children in the labor force! I want ATT smacked down and for piracy to be fucking legal! Much more important things!
Disclosure: I know little to nothing about the ATT deal or the piracy legislation (not subjects I really give a damn about as a totally non-techy person). But I damn well know quite a bit about what unions can and will do for working people. And I knew that back when I was a teenager. Hell, when I was a small child I knew it.
Seebach
Is anybody paying attention to what’s happening at the NYSE?
Mark S.
Rick Perry has a couple of modest proposals: cut Congress’ pay and staff in half (and then in half again when the budget isn’t balanced because of all of Perry’s tax cuts), term limit federal judges, and cut federal employees’ salaries in half until the budget is balanced.
Face
This is why they get married later and later in life.
Mark S.
@Seebach:
No. What’s happening?
Jude
@The Moar You Know: This. A million times, this.
Christ, unions are the ONLY fucking power that working people have other than the ballot box. How does joining a union make your life better? JOB FUCKING SECURITY, for one.
Do we really need to keep having this stupid question brought up?
Jude
@geg6: Props to you too, podna.
The Moar You Know
@geg6: The SOPA legislation is a big deal. Total and complete censorship of the internet in the name of protecting copyright holders is what is at stake.
That being said, the right to organize is far more important. The “unions are evil because some guy is throwing around rhetoric in an attempt to protect his people’s evil employer” is just a canard. Unions aren’t the problem. The people who wrote the bill, and the congresspeople who WILL pass it, are the problem.
But since there’s nothing that folks are willing to do to pull the fangs of the rich fuckers who are shoving this legislation down America’s collective maw, I guess all we can do is punch some hippies. Or workers. Or unions. Whatever. Just as long as someone gets punched and the wealthy can continue business as usual.
Seebach
OWS is shutting down the NYSE. No big whoop, apparently.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@The Moar You Know:
@geg6:
I think mistermix’s point here is that while the concept of Unions is still a necessary one, how do you go about convincing that to people when you have Unions in practice that enable and support the kind of shit that weakens and marginalizes them in the first place, like the giant turds of corporate excess he pointed out in his post?
I want strong, capable unions too, but that also entails Union leadership that doesn’t throw itself behind something for the short term that will result in corporations being free to gut Unions even further in the long term.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Mark S.:
And that’s why Rick Perry is considered an idiot by saner folks…
Punchy
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: Let me know when it actually passes the Senate and signed by Obama, which it hasnt’ and wont.
This is a nothingburger.
Mark S.
In other Perry news:
Please do this, Nancy! For the lulz!
Cacti
Okay, just so I understand, you’ve got your shorts in a twist because the union is primarily concerned with worker interests (which is their job) and isn’t acting as a wireless consumer advocacy organziation (which isn’t).
Would you like some cheese with your whine, mistermix?
Jeff Spender
mistermix actually has a point, guys.
I’ve been involved in a lot of unions, like UAW, a few hospital unions, a retail union, AFL-CIO, SEIU, and the Teamsters.
I have to be honest: if I didn’t know the history of unionized labor in this country (which is unusual for people my age (hint: >22 <24)), I'd say that unions are a waste of time, money, and only lead to trouble.
In fact, a lot of people my age seem to think this. That's because they don't understand how unions actually still deliver things like 40-hour work weeks, minimum wage, and safe working conditions. They don't really have any experience but that kind of thing, so it doesn't occur to them that there is anything but that. It's normal for them, so they assume it will always be like that.
I started to question the value of unions when I saw what's called "the iron law of oligarchy" in action. Unions exist, at first, with clear goals of helping labor. Now, and I speak from experience, many unions exist to propel their own existence.
I still ardently support unionized labor. I'm just not sure anyone else will, given the way they're run a lot of the time.
Full disclosure: through an AFL-CIO/SEIU/Teamsters rally, I met Howard Dean in 2003 at a rally in Detroit. Really fun guy. Didn't deserve the media tar-and-feathering he got.
dj
As a member of IATSE, a union which has been quite vocal in it’s support of the PROTECT IP Act, this is a major issue for our membership because theft of intellectual property directly effects our pension and health care plans. Those of us “below the line” or “behind the scenes” workers the residual payments go solely to our P & W plans. We are losing millions of dollars that help keep our plans afloat due to digital theft. For us this is not a short term issue. If the film and tv industry end up like the recording industry it will directly effect my brothers and sisters for decades to come. I understand the concern on both sides regarding free speech and other issues, hell I’m more to the left than many of my fellow members so they concern me as well. Yet to do nothing about this issue is more frightening to me and my fellow brothers and sisters.
I’d also like to point out as well that the unions role is to not just deal with the issues at hand in the workplace but also the issues which will effect us in the future. Many unions forgot that message – just ask the projectionists locals that were once one of the strongest jurisdictions in our union that did nothing to grow and develop with the change of technology and distribution and now have gone the way of the dodo bird.
cleek
@Seebach:
it’s better than what this OWS guy wants to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilq_66LnRaw&feature=player_embedded
Gin & Tonic
@Mark S.:
How much more part-time can they be? They’re off every time you turn around, for heaven’s sake.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Punchy:
It’s a nothingburger that’s still revealing however. It should be something used to bludgeon House GOP over promoting Second Amendment Fetishism over employment and economic issues (you know, despite being elected to be all about jobs), and the fact that it underlies the absurd hypocrisy of the whole ‘States’ Rights!’ cries. Not to mention that the vote count (272-154) shows a non-insignificant chunk of Dems willing to jump onto this dipshittery.
Seebach
@Gin & Tonic: Texas’s legislature is open only for 3 months every 2 years, or something like that.
Mark S.
@Jeff Spender:
You’re 23 and you’ve been “involved” in like 8 different unions? Did you start working when you were 5?
bin Lurkin'
Meh, anyone who was aware in the late sixties to the seventies knows union members are often far from liberal..
I remember hard hats beating up hippies, funny thing is I was both at the time.
Lawnguylander
I don’t think this story would cause some kid to doubt whether being in a union would be good for her personally. She’s seeing one exercise its power on behalf of its members. It might cause youngsters who are paying attention to notice that unions don’t always behave nobly when using their power but that’s where the father steps in and acknowledges that fact but points out that it’s necessary to have some counterbalance to those who control all the capital. Just like when they come to you outraged to learn that some people are cheating Medicaid and UEI. You don’t pretend it’s not an issue and accuse your kids of working for the Koch brothers, you learn them something about what it was like before unions and social programs existed. I think this is how to avoid raising a bagger of any sort.
Jeff Spender
@Mark S.:
No. That would be silly. Is…employment the only way you can imagine that one can get involved with unions?
harlana
i realize this is not germane to the specific discussion at hand, but i’ve just got to get this off my chest (those of you who are familiar with me know, unfortunately, how I operate this way):
The demonization of unions must stop. Everything I have, I owe to unions. My dad worked as much as possible when we were kids to earn enough overtime to put all 3 of us kids through college. A depression-era child with no college degree, he was able to earn enough to feed us and provide shelter, security, education, and relative comfort (although we lived pretty frugally, there was always plenty to eat!) Unfortunately, due to my own situation and up until very recently, he was still helping me by subsidizing my medical care.
No, my dad did not work in a union shop. We live in the south, where people were shot and killed for striking and that was the end of that. As a matter of fact, he was blackballed by his company for simply speaking to a labor lawyer. So, despite his skills, he was penalized and had to work that much harder and longer(swing shifts and the like, anything he could get, including working on holidays) to make up the difference b/w what he might have made in a managerial position he could not attain for political reasons.
This would not have been possible were it not for his ability to earn OT which is a result of the many good things unions have done for the American worker.
I realize this post is not really attacking unions but, again, I just need to unload – I take it very personally when unions, as a whole, are demonized.
geg6
At 23, you know more about unions than I do? Really? That’s what unions are all about today? I’m sure Rich Trumka will be happy to hear that you know his motivations better than he does. He’s just one of those union big-wig thugs, after all, sucking up to the oligarchy for the big bucks as a union president.
You know nothing, asshole.
Steeplejack
@Seebach:
Got a source for that? I’m not seeing anything on CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN or on the Times Web site.
cleek
@Steeplejack:
the “shut down” thing came from a Facebook comment.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111111/FINANCE/111119966
but it’s also what the crowd is chanting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45335208/ns/us_news-life/
bin Lurkin'
Amusing personal story, a family member of mine who has complained about unions a lot over the years recently landed a union job. Every time he starts to say anything positive about his job I remind him of how evil unions are.
Of course I’ve never been a union member.
Good times..
harlana
go ahead and say they are obsolete if you like, but don’t you dare tell me they are evil – those who directly benefit from the fruits (and spilled blood) of the early union movements need to appreciate history a little more and remember how we got to where we are today, and i really don’t think unions are what brought the economy down, somehow. color me nuts, but i don’t think that’s really the crux of the problem here. the whole point of demonizing unions is to keep the working people down, terrified, and grateful for the little crumbs they may receive from their employer, all the while fearful of whether or not their job will disappear in a puff of smoke one Friday afternoon.
Joey Maloney
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326595/wall-street-clashes-start-occupys-day-of-action/
Can't Be Bothered
@harlana:
You know there’s a middle ground between blind support and demonization? Unions badly, badly need to be internally reformed. They are not just important but necessary for working people to survive, but they shoot themselves in the foot with the layers of corruption, mismanagement and near sighted self interest. THAT is just as much a threat to their survival as attacks from Republicans. If they WERE better, it would be pretty hard to demonize them at all. So when their strategic vision is about a millimeter wide as mistermix has pointed out in this post, I have no problem calling them on being fucking stupid.
The Moar You Know
@harlana: Seconded.
@Jeff Spender: And his point is wrong. Period.
harlana
@bin Lurkin’: the irony, it burns!
harlana
@Can’t Be Bothered: you missed my point but that’s ok, i expected this sort of reaction – i never said there weren’t unions that need to be reformed. i realize that. many organizations have outdated and/or corrupt methods and need to be reformed. that is really not what i’m talking about – i am talking about a very destructive and demoralizing MEME that workers should not expect to have rights because they don’t deserve them, they are stinking peons (ask me how i know). The meme exists, it is directly connected to demonization of unions, it is prevalent and it is insidious.
again, i made it clear my story is personal and close to the heart – so sue me.
daveNYC
@geg6: I think I liked you better when you were whining about how unfair were were being to poor Penn State.
People already have these things. The reason they have them is because of unions; but because unions have already made all these gains that have been spread to the general population, it is that much harder for people just entering the workforce to see how a union will make their lives better.
And coming out in favor of an absolute shit bill like SOPA is pants-on-head retarded.
bin Lurkin'
@harlana: Why yes, yes it does.
Yutsano
@daveNYC: My union makes my life better. Because of my union I cannot be fired without a just cause and also I cannot stand alone against my employer if they do something wrong against me. Unions are empowerment devices. And the fact that the union is doing something to benefit its membership is what they’re supposed to be doing. Even if it’s for a bad law.
maya
My experience with unions goes way back. High school summer job @ $1.25 per hour at local supermarket in early 60’s – yes, I’m that old. Later, after college, started work on Wall Street in lower management just as 1969 recession hit. NYC clerical union saw their chance to organize WS employees because the usual bonuses were not going to happen. They got several people to help organize from within the company. It has to be that way, you know.
After several weeks of union activism inside the company it looked more and more like the employees would opt to join when the vote came. Then, over one weekend, the union suddenly and mysteriously pulled the plug and disappeared. Turns out the union big wigs met privately with the company big wigs who offered them a deal they just couldn’t refuse. Oh, and those workers who had been organizing? they were promptly fired and blacklisted from working on the street.
While unions can be beneficial for the average worker they can be even more lucrative for their big wigs – just like the board room guys., So, yes, mistermix has a good point.
harlana
and, yes, i love my former employers for putting food on the table so i’m not knocking them, but try temping for a while and you’ll find out what it means to be a disposable “thing” as opposed to a valuable, talented, exceptionally intelligent, hardworking employee who just might deserve to be rewarded for her efforts once in a while, as opposed to being unceremoniously cut loose the minute she has solved and straightened out whatever cluster-F she was thrown into. And that’s what it means to have not rights whatsoever in the workplace – and yes, i worked OT regularly w/o reporting it b/c employers totally frowned upon OT but still expected the job to get done which would NOT get done without working over 40 hours a week.
geg6
@daveNYC:
So they should absolutely not protect the interests of their members.
Gotcha.
handsmile
Here is the link to the Guardian’s live blog of today’s “OWS Day of Action” here in New York City: http://www.guardiannews.com/world/blog/2011/nov/17/occupy-wall-street-day-of-action-live
The opening bell of the NYSE rang out at its customary time of 9:30am this morning.
Many hundreds of protesters throughout lower Manhattan and the financial district; all access roads to Wall Street itself have been closed off by police since dawn. Massive deployment of security forces, including helicopters. Numerous reports of arrests; twitter feeds claim police use of pepper spray and batons.
On a thread ostensibly devoted to the issue of whether unions should ally themselves with corporate interests, actions today by the unionized members of the NYPD would seem to offer another test case.
Can't Be Bothered
@Yutsano:
And who is really making that call? Are union members also not consumers? Should they not have at least some allegiance to the REST of the working people in this country? Is STOPA really going to help their members that much? Or would it actually just mostly hurt all people? Is the PR from supporting it a good strategic trade off for the “benefits” of the legislation? And if unions are supporting a piece of legislation that is positively abysmal on its face, why do we have to stand around and pretend that that isn’t the case? It is possible to simulaneously believe that your union has made your life better AND that they are making a giant mistake in this instance? This lockstep “don’t you dare, ever say a bad word about unions” shit on this thread is creepy.
Ken J.
I blather this point again: My forecast is that SOPA/PROTECT IP, if some variant on these is signed into law by Obama, will blow Obama’s young voter support out of the water.
“Psst, Obama and the Record Companies wrecked the Internet. Pass it on.”
gnomedad
I can accept, in the face of mega-corporations and crap like Citizens United that unions are necessary. But it also seems clear to me that one of the functions of a union is to protect people who have jobs from people who seek jobs, generally by restricting entry into a profession. Lest I be misunderstood, I’m completely opposed to the current union-busting in WI, OH, and other places if for no better reason than it’s a GOP power-grab and public employees probably have a BETTER than average case for unionism because they work for official monopolies. I’d love to hear a convincing answer to my concerns. As addition background, I live Chicago, home to the notorious convention center “you gotta hire an electrician to plug that in for you” rules. (Yes, I know this situation has improved in recent years.)
Can't Be Bothered
@geg6:
Are the absolutely “specious” benefits of this bill better than the hurt it causes to union consumers and all consumers? You presume that just b/c the union supports it, it’s actually good when in reality it may be a gigantic mistake. The PR alone is not worth the cost, let alone the ACTUAL effects of this piece of shit bill. But I guess the union cannot fail, it can only be failed.
John X.
Look, I support the unions. I’m a union family, and I know what they’ve done for me and mine. With that said, the major American unions today are shadows of their old selves, decrepit, overly bureaucratic and corrupt.
Like a lot of American institutions, they’ve drifted away from their true purpose and now seem to exist mainly to pay executive salaries to union leaders and collect dues without doing much to justify them. Pretending otherwise just creates the kind of cognitive dissonance that the right loves.
Union management in this country is often horrible. The unions were cracked as a political force in this country in the 1930s and the 1950s, with the powers that be getting rid of the “communists” in the unions in favor of right-wing hawks and pro-business hacks.
That’s why the unions were on the wrong side in the 1960s. The widespread adoption of conservative memes in the blue collar world led to passive unions that didn’t resist until they’re new allies stabbed them in the back.
Now, the big unions are trying to find their mojos, but most of them are archaic in structure and ineffective at anything except collecting dues. That’s why you find them making deals like the UAW one that protects benefits for long-time members while allowing new workers to be shafted on pay and benefits.
“Solidarity” is as dated concept to many American union leaders. There needs to be an movement to take back the unions at some point.
Ed in NJ
Proponents of SOPA are trolling website comments all over the internet with this false comparison of stealing movies and music to walking into a store or someone’s home and taking their television or computer. They further claims that small businesses like production companies, and workers like production assistants, etc. are the ones suffering due to all this stealing. This is the argument that gets union workers and leadership on board for an ugly, overreaching law like this, going so far as to attack this as the 99% stealing from the 99%.
They fail to mention that sales of digital music and movies have added billions of $$ in new revenue, and actual movie ticket sales are at historically high levels. The problem in the record and movie industry is the same as in every other industry, the 1% hoarding all the profits, at the expense of the workers.
Jay in Oregon
@geg6:
Keep that in mind when unions can’t find their websites online anymore, because the big money guys find a pretext to have their internet access shut down or their URLs added to the American Firewall of Freedom.
SOPA is government-approved censorship, full stop. And if there’s anything that the Bush era should have taught us, it’s that those kinds of laws will be twisted to uses they (supposedly) weren’t intended for.
gnomedad
@gnomedad:
I live near Chicago.
300baud
I’m amazed at how a reasonable minor criticism of a couple of union positions gets immediately turned into “WHY DO YOU HATE THE 40-HOUR WORK WEEK!!11”
Unions do some great stuff. They also do some terrible stuff. When corporate execs promote their self-interest well above the good of their companies or the common good, we should call them to account. The same applies to unions.
kay
@daveNYC:
Okay. But make your argument. This is their argument:
I read it and I’m willing to listen to the other side, but all I’m hearing are allegations of corruption and collusion, “union bosses” and advice on political strategy re: unions.
I read the piece mistermix linked to and it’s a passionate defense of Google, a sort of vague deregulatory promise of great things to come, an extended whine about how opponents weren’t heard, and an assertion that everyone from the Tea Party to liberals opposes the law.
Because on this issue they’re allied with the corporations they work for, we’re just going to yell “freedom!” and not address what they said?
You know, they’ve heard that before. They’ve been told before that if we just free it all up and let markets regulate they’ll do GREAT!
I think that’s probably how they hear it, as still more free men/free markets. if it’s different than that, and it may well be, I think you have to show why it’s different.
Walker
@dj:
Doing nothing is not the same as allowing corporate censorship of the Internet. We have already seen how DMCA has been abused even in clear cut cases of fair use, or even against the right holders themselves.
The other issue is that this law is going to force us to freeze the Internet architecture is a way that is known to be insecure, and undo many, many years of work trying to improve this aspect of the Internet.
If this law passes, I guarantee you that we are going to see more browser plugin extensions that do an end run around the top level registries. So we are going to cause lasting damage to the Internet architecture, but will have nothing to show for it.
Ken J.
I’ll blather some more, since I have an audience. :-) (Usually I only post to threads which fell silent hours ago.)
Obama and the Dems face an unenviable clash between two pillars of their coalition — the young “digital natives” and the entertainment industry (aka Big Copyright).
The unions buy into the framing that this is a clash between creative workers, and companies which facilitate infringement. Yet there is no real difference between “empowering users” and “facilitating copyright infringement.” The hardware makers have been facilitating infringement for decades, as this is what the Betamax case was about. Remember, we came within one Supreme Court vote of making VCRs illegal. :-)
I have a long argument which I won’t reprint here, but basically copyright worked in a world where the tools to make copies were big, expensive and owned by businesses. It fails utterly when anyone can make and distribute copies for free. Which is why Big Copyright is now targeting the infrastructure of the Internet — because copyright enforcement against people who are actually making copies does not scale.
Among our would-be overlords, the China model is real. Pay attention — outside of copyright, we just had Michelle Bachmann extol the virtues of China. Representatives of Big Copyright have frequently praised China’s Internet controls and suggested it as a model for the USA.
A possible outcome: the financial strangulation of Wikileaks by cutting off Paypal, Visa etc is now seen as an acceptable model by many players, including the tech giants. MasterCard, however, is complaining about the current bill’s standards of evidence and tight timetables. But watch for something like this moving forward.
The Moar You Know
Idiots, most of you. Including mistermix.
A union exists for one reason and one reason only: defending the employment interests of their members. That’s it and that’s all.
SOPA is shit legislation, but it happens to be shit legislation that would be very good for employees of AT&T. Therefore, it’s the duty of the union to support that legislation.
This is not rocket science, guys. Unions will very frequently be on the “wrong” side of an issue because it’s not their job to be on the “wrong” or “right” side of an issue, it is solely to look out and advocate for the best interests of their members as regards their work environment. Period.
daveNYC
@geg6: SOPA is less about protecting the interests of the union’s members, and more about protecting the interests of the companies the members work for. Now there’s a lot of overlap there, since if the company doesn’t make money then the workers won’t make money. However, the SOPA law will also have an impact on union members as they go about their lives outside of their jobs, and the bill as a whole is poorly written (unless you’re an MPAA wanker, then you love it) and very open to abuse.
And to be honest, by backing this bill, the AFL-CIO is working against my interests and working for a internet that is even more dominated by major corporations and media interests.
Can't Be Bothered
@kay:
“Strengthening” IP laws in this manner doesn’t do jack fucking squat for jobs. In fact, it will HURT jobs. It will concentrate them in people with the money to go around “enforcing” their rights wherever they want. Read the damn bill.
Counterfeit goods? There are already very good strong laws on the books for this that have extremely friendly enforcement mechanisms for makers of goods. What the flying fuck does a law that allows willy nilly censorship of the internet have to do with counterfeit goods. To steal Obama’s analogy, it’s like using an atomic bomb instead of a scalpel.
Lawlessness? lawlessness is allowing corporations to decide what their rights are and give them the ability to basically play judge and jury about what information you and I and the rest of us get to see.
This thread is making me furious, so I’ll just go ahead and say it. Fuck the AFL-CIO and fuck anyone defending their support of this piece of shit bill.
Can't Be Bothered
@The Moar You Know:
Please get a clue about the basics of the fucking situation before you spout off about it. You have just showed that you have literally NO goddamn clue what you’re talking about.
harlana
@The Moar You Know:
precisely!
Judas Escargot
@Steeplejack:
rawstory has a live videofeed, which of course I can’t access at the moment (Praise the Company).
Note to journalistic sites: I realize that video is the kewl-4thelulz-allthekidzdoin’it way to deliver me content these days, but does that mean we’re supposed to completely abandon text from now on? Most large companies have firewalls and bandwidth useage restrictions: Two or three sentences would suffice.
Can't Be Bothered
@harlana:
PRECISELY! This is near sighted, strategic dumbfuckery that will only hurt their members in the long run. The union is not infallible, and their mere support of something does not mean that it is smart or helps its members. This is basic logic people. Basic.
300baud
@The Moar You Know:
This is as wrong as is the corporatist notion that it’s ok to do anything as long as it makes a profit. As Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
We the people are up to something bigger than putting money in people’s pockets, whether those pockets are on blue jeans or Armani suits. People should certainly advocate for their own interests, but if they do so blindly, without regard for their effect on others or our collective enterprises, then they act as jackals do.
Can't Be Bothered
@harlana:
And as a second matter I wholly reject the notion that unions should only have their members “benefits” in mind NO MATTER THE COST to the rest of us. That is why corporations are so rightly decried as they psychopathic entities they are. In hypothetical terms, is an extra 10,000 union jobs worth coporate control and censorship of the internet? Should we be all, derrr that’s what unions are for?
geg6
@Can’t Be Bothered:
I don’t presume anything. I know less than nothing about this legislation, so I have no opinion on it. The union and its members have chosen to support it, so they must see benefit to their members for it. That is their job.
I don’t see it as good legislation because the union supports and I don’t see it as bad legislation because you and a bunch of techies hate it. I’m simply commenting on what a union is supposed to do: support things they and their members believe to be important to them. I’m sure there are writers, film makers, actors, and recording artists who think your take on the legislation will hurt them and don’t give a damn about your being able to pirate their works, if that is what this is about.
Can't Be Bothered
This has clearly got my goat. But the internet has meant an explosion of creativity, productivity, freedom, interconnectedness, and a growing meritocracy from free flowing information. It would literally be impossible to heap enough superlatives on what is without question to me the greatest single and collective achievement of mankind. And people on this thread are willing to turn that over to corporate control and censorship, for a few more union jobs? Really? The union is dead fucking wrong on this. And their support shows that they have so little regard for the interests of others that they need to be reclaimed from their inept leadership. I can’t believe the apologetic bullshit I’m reading for such sociopathic behavior.
geg6
@daveNYC:
And to be honest, they don’t give a shit about your interests in this case, since, as they see it, your interests are directly opposed to that of their members.
What is it with people who seem to think unions are benevolent associations meant to better the lives of everyone but their own membership? Though some of their fights have bettered the lives of everyone, that’s not what they are there to do, especially if it clashes with the interests of their members.
Can't Be Bothered
@geg6:
If that’s their job, then they need to be dismantled. If they would like to scrape whatever measly “benefit” they think is there by gouging it out of the back of the entire rest of the world, then they are no better than the corporations doing the same.
geg6
@Can’t Be Bothered:
You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what a union is. You need to do a little research on what unions are and what they are meant to do. They aren’t there to protect you and all your little hobby horses. They are there to protect their members. If you want an organization to fight for your interests, start your own union.
Brachiator
@harlana:
This is really a non-issue. I recognize the importance of unions, and their critical importance.
But I also recognize how unions worked to exclude blacks and other nonwhites, their not always sparkling record with respect to women workers, and their sordid relationship with organized crime. People worked hard to improve unions, not to turn a blind eye to their failings.
And unions, no institution, can do dirty shit, and hide behind exhortations to recall only their glory days and best work.
@Ken J.:
People have always stolen art, literature and entertainment. The digital world gives thieves an edge. SOPA is dumbshit and seeks to give corporations an advantage, but the underlying issues are real. Good solutions are very hard to come by.
Can't Be Bothered
@geg6:
So if unions could get a $.25 wage bump for its “members” by charging $10 for every letter you read on the internet, you’d be on board right? They’re just doing what’s best for them. It’s their job. Why would you get all up in arms about it. Let’s have garbage collection cost as much as your mortgage. Hey, it would be good for the union members.
I reject that there is any benefit for their members even there and you’re saying that regardless, I should ignore the cost, b/c hey.. unions are not benevolent, they’re in it for themselves. I await your breathless defense of corporate greed. It’s their job after all.
geg6
@Can’t Be Bothered:
If your hysterical predictions came true and it led me to become upset with, say, Google charging me for using their search because a union wage increase made them, I would probably organize my own group to fight against it.
I don’t find your hysteria very convincing, by the way. Even if this is bad legislation, the little I know of it is that it protects copyrights, which is a good thing for the most part, IMHO. So I can see exactly why unions for the arts are for it. But then I never used Napster either.
Linnaeus
I don’t know the details of this bill (which I will have to read), so I can’t comment on it directly. I’m a very strong supporter of organized labor, both in theory and in practice, yet I’m not averse to pointing out where labor goes wrong sometimes. It’s entirely possible to be, on the whole, a good thing but still make mistakes. Pointing those out makes for a stronger movement in the end.
I’m also sympathetic to the notion that labor organizations are part of a broader social movement. That goes right back to their roots. Plus, labor unions function in a context – their actions can have ripple effects, again, mostly for the good, in my view. They’re simply part of a larger progressive community.
The challenge for a union that wants to see itself acting in the broader interest of the collective society is that it is also a member-run organization. So if I’m a union leader, I need to make sure that I am responsive to my membership, as they pay my salary, they vote on any contracts I negotiate, and they can get rid of me if I fail or am neglectful of my duties. In fact, I can get my union in very big legal trouble if I’m deemed not to have fulfilled my duty of fair representation for everyone I represent, although that’s probably not going to be an issue in this specific case.
Point being, it’s not necessarily wrong to critique a union’s actions on the basis of collective interest, but it’s much easier to make such critiques if you stand to benefit, but will not bear any of the possible costs. Which doesn’t mean that you’re wrong, it’s just that when an organization is asked to work to provide wide-ranging benefits, but possibly with costs borne narrowly by that organization, you run into difficulties.
rumpole
Be very careful what you wish for. This legislation is aimed at websites that are engaged in plain-old ripoffs of songs, movies, and other works. There’s no First AMendment right to engage in this activity. The reason that Google and the tech industry are so hard against this is they make a metric f-ton of money pointing people to illegal content, and selling ads against it. It really is that simple.
The unions understand that although it’s gotten really cheap to manufacture a silver plastic disc, making music hasn’t gotten any easier or cheaper. You still need a drummer, a bassist, a lead gutiar, and a singer. Those people need to be paid. The parade of horribles that these groups talk about are 99% bullshit.
It’s fine that you think information ought to be free, or whatever. But to pretend that there’s some massive policy benefit to this only on one side is almost laughably naive. (especially here, because the front-pagers tend to see both sides of things). The idea that ipods ought to be really expensive, but content ought to be cheap benefits those that make ipods far more than it does those folks who make music. And don’t think for a minute that the folks who make ipods don’t know that.
Can't Be Bothered
@geg6:
So you don’t know the first goddamn thing about it then? Good to know. It is breathtaking to me that there is literally no bridge too far for you in regards to unions. Self interest has no limits, so long as I can form an equally shitty group to fight for my own interest? Great world to live in. Great fucking world.
negative 1
There are so many things wrong with this it is almost impossible to start. Our union bargains contracts, defends workers from unfair disciplanary actions, trains teachers, protects pensions, offers healthcare and pays for education of its members in some instances. For anyone who says ‘they’re only in it for themselves’ – are any of you actually in a union? If so, don’t they offer you a pension, a health plan and insist on fair wages? If you’re not in a union, how would you know what they offer? Even our members sadly don’t realize the benefits of membership all of the time, but to be fair they don’t get to see management contract proposals before we bargain them into a fair deal.
The point of this article is that unions should support more non-unionized companies so that we look good by comparison? I don’t remember any writers on this site supporting the CWA Verizon Wireless strike when they were bargaining to keep call center jobs in this country. By this logic I suppose unions should support being attacked on all fronts, however. That way when we’re all destroyed we’ll look real good compared to the working conditions left behind.
rumpole
@Can’t Be Bothered: See Federalist 10.
General Stuck
It is the loud and raucous cacophony of democracy. People wanting one thing, and others wanting something else. It is normal for folks to protect their self interest, and in democracy, there is strength in numbers, and sometimes a majority. It’s ain’t perfect, but better than anything else.
The Moar You Know
@Can’t Be Bothered: You’re killing me here. Who’s paying you? Not a rhetorical question. Seriously. Who’s paying you to write this comedy?
The internet?
The mind reels.
daveNYC
@geg6:
Ah, well then pardon my complete lack of interest when the next round of union busting shit starts flowing downhill. After all, I’m not in a union, and since unions are only looking out for their own interests, I should probably start doing the same. The road to Hell isn’t paved with good intentions, it’s paved with “I’ve got mine, fuck you.”
And for God’s sake, read up on the bill. It protects copyright about the same way the Patriot Act protected against terrorism.
FFrank
unions have lawyers and credit unions that can help you in the outside world and can help you internally by acting as a go between for labor relations with the company you work for.
You are biting into a republican mem and sucking on it pretty hard.
The real problem with Unions is they don’t teach the outside world that they do provide services, safety and other training.
me
@dj: Gotcha, large scale censorship is cool as long as you get yours. BTW, ask Valenti about how that “VCR is the Boston strangler” thing worked out.
Sentient Puddle
@The Moar You Know: You must be new to the Internet. Welcome! Have a look around.
kay
@Can’t Be Bothered:
That’s fine. I’m not really defending the AFL CIO here. I’m just a little wary of the idea that the people represented by the unions listed in the testimony don’t know what benefits them re: the work that they do.
I’m wary of the idea that members are somehow being duped by corporations in collusion with union bosses. I just think union members do lobbying on their issues very well. If there’s anything they’re good at, it’s focusing on specific legislation. It’s been my experience that activist members are very well-informed on “how things work” on a specific law or issue, much more so than any random person. It’s one of the benefits of belonging to a union. They lobby. Constantly.
If the complaint is that they’re not far-sighted enough, or not working for the common good, I might accept that.
A lack of focus or understanding on pieces of legislation or process just isn’t something I think they exhibit. On the contrary, I think it’s an area of strength for them. if you’re telling me they’re on the wrong side on this, but they don’t know it, I think you have to back that up.
John X.
@The Moar You Know
If you think that calling the largest shared body of human knowledge and communication in history one of the major inventions in mankind is, in any way, something to scoff at, you have no business commenting on anything related to technology, society or history. You are just too clueless.
The fucking printing press led to centuries of war, technological/intellectual exchange and the end of rule by kinds and priests. Informational exchange has always been the most disruptive of technologies, and we are already seeing the Internet disrupting societies across the globe.
The Moar You Know
@Sentient Puddle: I took your advice and went to this website called “4chan” and now I need therapy. Thanks a lot. Where do I send the bill?
gnomedad
A couple of propositions:
(1) Over time,organizations tend to evolve to primarily protect their own existence and look out primarily for the interest of their members. That’s just how the world works.
(2) Under good leadership, it’s possible for organizations to push back against (1) and become something better.
My take: because of (2), avoid glib cynicism about unions and other organizations; because of (1), don’t just trust an organization that “has everyone’s best interests in mind”.
The Moar You Know
@John X.: I think I will anyway. I’ve been working with computers since I was 14 – that makes 31 years. I do it for a living. I am not unaware of all traditions, internet or otherwise.
But to call this mankind’s greatest invention? Ludicrous. You should get out of your privileged First World bubble and go spend some time in some places where they don’t have electricity, or phones, or your precious internet. Those places aren’t hard to find; they’re known as “most of the world”.
You want “mankind’s greatest invention”? Try germ theory. Or guns. Or malaria nets. Or ORT (oral rehydration therapy). I could go on, but the four things I just cited have changed more lives in a far more fundamental way than the internet ever will.
kay
@Can’t Be Bothered:
I’ll give you an example. During the negotiations on the health care bill, unions went berserk over taxes and health insurance. I know why they did that. They’ve negotiated contracts that are heavy on health insurance. I think that was a mistake, because I think an insurance policy doesn’t have the same (real, actualized) value as wages, so accepting more and more compensation in the form of insurance is not a good deal, particularly for younger members, who of course don’t need all that insurance, but instead need actual wages. Too, the tax advantage helps insurance companies, so there should have been a divide there between “liberals” and “unions”, in my view.
But I didn’t think members were poorly informed on the bill, because they weren’t. They knew what they were doing. They were just (IMO) doing the wrong thing. If I wanted to change their position, I was going to have to persuade them, instead of telling them they didn’t understand the law.
Linnaeus
@kay:
I think this is a fair point to make. If we regard unions and union members as (generally) progressive partners who, in this particular case, are making a mistake (a reasonable proposition that I think even the most ardent critics of the SOPA bill and union support of it would accept), then it’s worth thinking about how to persuade, say, the typical AFTRA member. Consider their viewpoint and work from that.
Doing just that is how my union got off the ground in the first place. Reach people where they are and bring them around. It’s not easy, and there will be failures as well as successes. But it works in the long run.
JR
@dj:
People mis-using copyrighted material is already illegal. This bill will make it so easy to shut off union web sites, political web sites, sports you don’t approve of web sites, the freedom of the Internet will be gone!
I hope President Obama will veto this piece of dreck, but given that he needs to raise a billion $$ from Hollywood, I’m not optimistic. He can be a pragmatist, and pragmatically, the money and his re-election can be viewed as better than the continued existence of anarchy on wires known as the Internet.
And how come this blog tool’s spell checker knows that the word internet should be capitalized, but doesn’t know that the President of the USA is names Obama?
Just askin’
JR
Berial
For those that don’t know ANYTHING about SOPA yet go to arstechnica.com and look in their ‘Law and Disorder’ section for stories about it. I would link them but I’m pretty sure I would just be labeled a spammer.
The Stories I know of there:
“Are SOPA sponsors about to make themselves felons? Probably not”
“At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for “pro-pirate” Google”
“Republicans, Democrats, Google, and Church of Sweden unite to halt Hollywood”
“Register of Copyrights: without SOPA, copyright “will ultimately fail””
and finally
“Famous Hollywood-backed free speech lawyer says SOPA is A-OK”
And for the record I am pro-union but very ANTI-SOPA.
Putting Hollywood, the RIAA and the MPAA in charge of the internet just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
William Hurley
I can assure you, if SOPA lands on Obama’s desk he’ll eagerly sign it.
In fact, SOPA wouldn’t have made it this far without Presidential support.
Unions, bad. President, worse.
EFF has been all over this travesty for the outset.
geg6
@Can’t Be Bothered:
That shitty world is the real world. Start living in it.
And if you had actually been reading instead of having a hysterical fit that a union that represents artists whose work is being ripped off wants to try to stop that, you’d have noticed that I said many posts ago that I am not familiar with the legislation.
If you want to protect your own interests, start your own union. That’s what they are for.
John X.
@The Moar You Know
Now I know you are just talking shit. The Third World is full of internet cafes, cellphones, texting and even smart phones. Go to any large city in Africa – yes, they even have cities – and you’ll be amazed at how connected they are. The Arab Spring happened on Twitter for a reason.
Talking about how internet tech is a First World issue means that you haven’t been outside the First World in at least a decade, probably more. Again, you are too dense to comment on this issue.
John X.
The one consistent theme among Blue Juicers is that they’ll support any system or leaders, no matter how crappy, if they’re wearing the right label. This is why a majority of them were Republicans for so very long.
AA+ Bonds
Awesome story bashing unions and dividing the Democrats, a big brown thumbs-up from Karl Rove to you, mistermix
geg6
@John X.:
Other than John and one or two others, I’d like to see your evidence of this statement. Personally, I’ve been a Democrat since 1977, when I could first register to vote. My Democratic mom and Democratic union member Dad took me to the courthouse to do it.
Walker
@rumpole:
Fixed that for you. The power that this law grants to corporations is extreme and we know it will be abused. If the website cannot afford to defend itself from a frivolous suit, then it is blacklisted from the Internet.
kay
@geg6:
O/T but how are you? Is it horrible at work? If we both stipulate ahead of time that this question and your answer doesn’t mean we don’t care about children, I think you can respond safely.
Cain
@dj:
The problem is that the industry continues to inflate prices past of what the market is willing to pay for it. A student cannot afford a $60 game, and when there are other channels of distribution then they will pursue that. This is a slipper slope, you’ll end up with just another “war on drugs” style of war and all just to protect an industry that has not modernized itself.
Case in point, on occasion I used to buy cheap games or wait or even occasionally download a game. When I installed Steam, a game distribution system.. the price points were very attractive. Buying a game at 5-6 dollars was nothing. Consequently, Indie games started oing very well.
Same thing with Kindle, a 2.99 e-book or .99 e-book is within the realm of “impulse buy” and authors were making quite a bit of money through this.
When someone is stealing digital content, it’s a misnomer to think that they were a customer in the first place. Meaning if there was no way to pirate it and you just bought it, that download is not automatically a sale. So calculating the cost of that is not accurate.
The Moar You Know
@John X.: Unbelievable. Here I am getting a self-righteous lecture from some douche who’s obviously never been to a third world country. I WAS JUST THERE. Came home from deployment in September. Yes, they have cities. Yes, they have internet – sort of. Even cell phones, albeit at 40 cents a minute.
Here’s the deal – and I know that this is going to be very hard for you to comprehend – 90% of the populace of Africa, or China, or India will never have enough money to set foot in any place that has enough connectivity to even send an email. The internet is not relevant to them and never will be.
You desperate need to believe that everywhere in the world is just like America is really, really sad.
geg6
@kay:
I’m okay and, so far, things are okay at work. Got a few nasty emails into the admissions office and a couple of nasty phone calls, but the fallout hasn’t shown itself to be overwhelming yet. Our development officer has been in touch with all of our campus donors and they are hanging tough. We have always had a lot of community support and, being a very small campus, people in the community know us. Hopefully, they still trust us.
Our campus’ chancellor had a campus town meeting on Monday. It really was a good thing to do. Everyone was very honest, including the chancellor, and we all got everything off our chests. With one or two exceptions, I think we all came out of it feeling connected to each other and supportive of each other.
I’m having my first high school financial aid night of the year tonight. I typically do about 12-15 of these general information presentations (not about PSU, but about federal and state aid programs) each year and had them all scheduled before everything broke. I’m generally not nervous about public speaking and know the information backward and forward. But I’m a bit nervous about tonight just because I have no idea what to expect and can’t really answer any questions, should I get any, about what effect this will have on tuition or scholarships or anything, really. I’ll get through it, though. I’m pretty tough. And once I get one under my belt, I’ll be fine.
Thanks so much for asking. You’re really very kind and I appreciate it.
John X.
@The Moar You Know
Deployment. Jesus, what a character.
So, you huddled in a base, behind guns in some god-forsaken warzone and think you know shit about anything? Here’s a clue – the places I’m talking about are the places we aren’t bombing at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use
There are a billion fucking cellphones in Africa. Internet cafes are everywhere. I was in North Africa last summer, and everyone has one.
The Moar You Know
Add to the already formidable list of things that John X. doesn’t know shit about:
276. Military life in a country not involved in hostilities.
It’s really something else. You can live in town, and go out to eat and stuff like that. They even let you talk to people!
Hell, you can even drive a car, assuming that you feel confident that your reaction time is equal to the locals you’re sharing the roads with. It probably isn’t.
EDIT: No guns on base, by the way. That’s an ironclad rule save for actual combat zones.
Berial
@The Moar You Know:
Does the NRA know about this travesty of justice! /snark.
rumpole
@Walker: Cute. But wrong. What, specifically, is it in the bill that you believe permits this kind of overbreadth? Because I really didn’t see it this way. The stuff that’s on sites like pirate bay isn’t fair use. There’s no problem with shutting them down.
Cain
@geg6:
This is one of those cases where it might be good for their members, but their members are also affected for this. For instance, if union member kids download illegal music or bittorrent then their kids are going to be charged with a federal crime.
The problem here is that they are supporting govt overreach witha bill that supports corporation but also ultimately it weakens possibly their own ability to organize on the Internet as *any* copyrighted material used can be used as weapon against them.
Good for their members, but might not be good for unions in general.
tech98
It doesn’t help when unions sign off on two-tier pay scales that screw new employees to preserve the privilege of middle-aged unionists with seniority.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
Oh geg6, you’re always good for a laff.
You know nothing about the bill, except that some unions support it, therefore anyone who opposes the bill is nothing more than a union hater who wants a return to the gilded age.
How about you spend five minutes educating yourself about the bill with a fucking Google search? You know, do it while you have the chance, because once this legislation passes the free, open internet we all enjoy is finished.
By the way, telling people that unions are happy to fuck over the entire rest of the country for some flimsy gains for its members is not gonna do a lot to encourage support for unions. Just a tip for you.
Rome Again
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
I want to know which well regulated militia all these conceal/open* carry 2nd Amendment rights idiots belong to?
*I include open carry because we have open carry here in AZ, even in bars.
beergoggles
Once the question becomes: Get free porn on the interwebz vs. whatever the unions want, the unions are gonna lose every time.
And in that scenario, I’ll readily admit that I would cheer while the unions are relegated to the dustbin of history.. if I can find a free hand.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@geg6:
All that’s fine, but then you should expect people to react to unions just like they do to any other group that works to protect the self-interest of its members. One thing that does not mean is that the reaction will be based upon the assumption that unions work for the good of everyone in all instances.
You want unions to be able to have it both ways. That’s not going to happen. They can be organizations who act in the common good *or* they can be organizations that act out of self-interest, which may or may not also be the common good. They can’t be both. If you want everyone to defend unions as a general proposition, then you need to have unions that work for everyone as a general proposition.
Which one do you want?
Linnaeus
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):
That’s a fair point to make. I do think that, in general, unions do work for the common good because I think that things like collective bargaining, good working conditions, etc. are things that we all as workers have a right to.
But, as I mentioned upthread, there’s a tension there. Unions are part of a broader social movement, but they’re also responsible to their membership. They have to be, or they lose any authority to act on behalf of workers. So those in leadership positions have to keep in mind their responsibilities to their members, or they get booted out of their positions in favor of someone else. That’s how democratic organizations work. It’s a tough balancing act sometimes, although I think unions do it better than most other institutions do.
Furthermore, it’s easy to expect unions to do things if one wants to reap the benefit, but won’t pay the cost. I’m not saying that’s the case in this particular instance, but as a union member and activist, I’ve run into a number of situations in which I hear people say, “well, the unions should do this”. I then say, “great, what will you do to help bring that about?” Then the heming and hawing begins, and it becomes clear that what that person meant was, “you should do this, do the work, bear the costs, and I can have the benefit.” That doesn’t happen all of the time, but it does enough that I’ve noticed it.
mclaren
SOPA has nothing to do with piracy, just as the TSA and DHS have nothing to do with terrorism.
SOPA is designed to create a Chinese-style totalitarian Great Firewall in America in which an information dictatorship is enforced by riot-armed goons breaking down the doors of kids who post comments critical of wealthy powerful people on the internet.
Just as the DHS helped coordinate the illegal and unconstitutional assaults on non-violent public free speech in the nationwide Occupy movement, the Great Firewall of America created by SOPA will coordinate illegal and unconstitutional assaults on the ability of people who dissent from the neoconservative belief system to contact one another online and organize using twitter or texting or email or facebook.
The goal is the same in both cases: to create an American police state in which any time anyone even thinks about dissenting from less taxes on the super-rich and more unwinnable foreign wars and less basic social services, riot-armored thugs shotgun their door hinges off and bash them in the face with an assault rifle and drag that person off leaving a 150-yard-long blood trail on the sidewalk.
Robert Waldmann
I’d say you sure aren’t an expert. You wrote “an environment where corporate power is concentrated in two giant corporations usually isn’t a place where unions thrive.” How about an example ? The facts say that less competition is correlated with stronger unions.
There is a real difference of interests between unionized workers as workers and consumers (including those same workers when they are buying stuff made by other unionized workers). That’s life.
US unions are’t Swedish unions. They have hardly ever put the general interest above the narrow interests of their members.
One striking exception is the UAW which was strong enough to get high salaries for its workers plus health insurance plus defined benefit pensions and still had strength to spare to fight for basically all progressive causes (except reducing automobile pollution of course). That was when they represented workers in a tri-opoly. Now that foreign cars have penetrated the US market, they don’t have strength (and money) to spare fighting for social justice.
Note that the US Steel industry was unionized US Steel Corporation first. That company was the result of the original merge competitors to prevent competition. It had huge profits due to imperfect competition. It was the first Steel corp in the USA to recognize a union (this is long before the Wagner act).
The fact is that the workers in an industry and the greed head CEOs have a lot of interests in common. You can hope that workers look beyond their paychecks and join one big union, but the IWW isn’t very big http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Union_(concept)
(it does still exist http://www.iww.org/
Omnes Omnibus
@Robert Waldmann: The Wobblies had a significant presence at Madison protests last winter.