Tea Party obstruction and liberal hypocrisy, defied: NYU grad students poised to make history
Source: Salon.com
GOP senators and Obama's Treasury Secretary helped NYU shut out its grad students for 8 years. That's about to end
Josh Eidelson
A vote being held tomorrow and Wednesday could secure union recognition for New York University graduate students, which the administration withdrew and then withheld from them with help from congressional Republicans and Obamas now-Treasury Secretary for the past eight years. If the United Auto Workers emerges victorious in the vote, NYU will become only private sector U.S. university to bargain collectively with graduate student teachers and researchers though such workers will remain excluded from U.S. labor law.
We are a critical part of the university, said Matthew Canfield, a leader of the UAWs Graduate Student Organizing Committee at NYU. By recognizing our rights, he argued, NYU was moving closer to becoming a better and more inclusive place for everyone. Canfield told Salon it had become incredibly difficult for grad student workers to support families, and that GSOC was pretty confident of victory in Wednesdays vote count.
We felt there was a middle ground, NYU Executive Vice President Robert Berne told Salon. He said NYU expects that if the union wins, we will start to bargain right away.
Under the agreement, announced just before Thanksgiving, the UAW has agreed to the withdrawal of a legal case asking the National Labor Relations Board to recognize graduate student teachers and researchers as workers with union rights; NYU has agreed to recognize and bargain with most of the graduate student workers the UAW seeks to represent, if they vote union in an American Arbitration Association-supervised election in which NYU has pledged to remain neutral.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/09/tea_party_obstruction_and_liberal_hypocrisy_defied_nyu_grad_students_poised_to_make_history/
John Boehner, Jack Lew, Ted Cruz (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)
MADem
(135,425 posts)The headline (I guess it's the "sub" headline, technically) makes it appear that the Treasury Secretary was acting under the imprimatur of the Obama administration--the fact of the matter is, when he was up to no good, he wasn't in the cabinet.
It's like they're using ANY hook to drag OBAMA into the discussion--see? See? It's Obama's fault!!
I just don't go for that kind of journalism.
It's a distinction and a difference, and I really think SALON let their readers down with that kind of cheesy headlining....perhaps they're looking for a wingnutty following, or those so-called "Reagan Democrats" to round out their readership?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Maybe not pick an anti-labor person?
Omaha Steve
(99,706 posts)Josh is not anti-Obama. I have posted his stories from Salon & Huffington Post on the DU over 100 times. This is one of the few times this type of flavor has come up.
OS
MADem
(135,425 posts)I maintain that the way that headline was constructed was a cheap shot.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He shouldn't pick anyone who is anti-labor for ANY cabinet position. The cabinet is the President's personal think tank. It's telling how he filled it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"position on labor" suits you?
That's not how it's done. It's not how it will EVER be done.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that at least hadn't overtly attacked Labor.
So, to answer your question: No. He should pick someone who is knowledgeable and does not espouse anti-Democratic values.
MADem
(135,425 posts)attributes.
Sometimes, even more so.
I maintain that the article's headline attempts to drag "Obama" into an imbroglio that does not involve him in the slightest. It's a cheap shot.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that you wouldn't call a cheap shot? You're not exactly an objective source.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"getting to know you" with a Treasury Secretary in his 2nd term.
You do know that the incumbent in the position spoke with Obama every waking day of life in his previous position as WH Chief of Staff?
The man was familiar to him, he had the skills to do the job, he could pass the "Advise and Consent" drill in a skin-of-teeth (D) Senate, and he was ready to go to work immediately.
I swear, some people here think Obama has all damn day to micromanage shit. He doesn't. He's the Chief Executive, not the nanny. He doesn't have time to sit around coddling and exhorting and getting down in the weeds. He picks people who are politically loyal and can do the job, gives them general direction and tells them to let him know if anything comes up.
They don't have to pass some quirky little "purity test" that has nothing to do with the job they are undertaking. And they never will. That's just not how it works. I await the predictable excoriation for my truth-telling.
Bottom line--Obama had nothing to do with this story. It happened BEFORE the Treasury Secretary came to work for him. Inserting him into it was FauxSnoozian, at best. He's mentioned in the headline and the lead paragraph solely to pull people in, and he's not mentioned subsequently because he had nothing to do with the issues that were discussed.
That's a cheap shot, by any measure. It's "guilt by association" and it's some nasty "journalism."
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's just more evidence that while Administrations change every four or eight years, policies remain essentially unchanged. In this case, the same general pro-business/anti-education/anti-labor policies that have been in place since Reagan.
Yes, this article reflects on events that transpired before Jack Lew became Treasury Secretary. However it does shine a light on the political character of an important Cabinet member and thus on the political character of the man who selected Lew for his post. It is important that we, as educated and involved citizens, look with a critical eye at who these people are who comprise the Administration and how their past experience will color their future policies.
Too many Americans are living in a political fantasy land. Half believe that Obama is some kind of wild-eyed Marxist Manchurian Candidate, and the other half think he's a haloed progressive Working Class Hero. He is neither.
MADem
(135,425 posts)without having the gratuitious "Obama" flung in there -- for no good reason, he wasn't THERE when that nonsense went down--and come to a conclusion in that fashion, they aren't very educated.
Read that thing and pretend that the banner at the top of the page says FOX NEWS instead of SALON. If I were looking at that "journalism" and asked to choose which outlet put that out, without any cues, I'd choose FOX.
Bottom line--this story has NOTHING to do with Obama. He chose his chief of staff to be his Treasury Secretary for two reasons: 1) because the guy had the right skillset for that particular task and 2) he could communicate with the man easily. There was no learning curve for the cabinet official to have to learn--he'd been dealing with the POTUS intimately and knew the routine. No crossed wires, no mixed signals, no miscues. When you're busy, it's nice to have someone you KNOW in a job.
I will maintain that Obama's name was gratuitously tossed into that headline and the lead paragraph solely as "click bait," to pull in outraged wingnut readers. It smacks of cheap desperation. Cheesy.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...after he won election, that is.
About says it all.