Wow. Obama's speech today lost him more union support

[Horse with no Name]

Ed has it on right now. He is really fired up.

Telling unions basically they just need to suck it up and share in the sacrifice.

[Oceansaway]

1. sad ....he had 'em all too...nt

[Horse with no Name]

71. Going to jump in here...I can't find a transcript for "The Ed Show"

so I will transcribe myself:

ED: we have had this big discussion in this country on workers rights, collective bargaining, and sure enough President Obama goes out on the campaign trail holds this event in Iowa and the President was asked this interesting question about the rights of public employees across America. But it was his answer that really caught my attention. Listen closely.

QUESTION: What can you do to help support collective bargaining in the states and most of all support the public sector unions, the middle class--many of them who are union members?

OBAMA: There are a whole range of things that people take for granted even if they aren't a union that they wouldn't have had if it had not been for collective bargaining.
I do say though, to my friends, in the public sector of unions, that it is important that you are on the side of reform where reform is needed.
Remember we talked about shared sacrifice and burden sharing, well this is an area where there has to be burden sharing as well.

ED: WHAT? Did I hear that correctly? That has to be the most troubling thing that I have heard Obama say. These workers have already made a lot of sacrifices Mr. President and you know that. I can tell you one thing folks, there is not one union leader in America that will back President Obama on that statement. This is the candidate in 2008 that said he would be proud to walk the picket lines with union workers and I think the President is still there, but if you want to dissect what he just said, you can make the case that he sides with Governor Walker in Wisconsin. It's like the President is giving up on the middle class.

[patrice]

93. Some thoughts on Reform, the necessity or not of "sharing sacrifice" & media influence

Regarding President Obama's remarks in Iowa yesterday, 08/15/11: Public Sector unions is a larger, more general, category than any specific group within that category. There are group traits that all member-groups in that Public Sector Unions category share and there are traits that are specific to only one or more of its member-groups.

As individual groups within the Public Sector Unions category, there will be one or more groups who have the trait = CAN "share the sacrifice" in order to get something else that they might be trying to get out of negotiations. There will also be individual groups within the Public Sector Unions category who have a trait = CANNOT "share the sacrifice" in order to get whatever else they might be trying to get.

The proposal that the necessity of REFORM should be the criteria by means of which those member-groups who CAN "share the sacrifice" determines their role in negotiations seems not only practical, but also useful, though it does depend upon identification of REFORM. To me reform seems to be something that workers themselves know a great deal about since they are the ones doing the work and know what the problems are, so unions COULD have an advantage to the extent that they OWN the issues associated with professional standards and, hence, the degree of reform that is or is not necessary.

The proposal that the necessity of REFORM should be the criteria by means of which those member-groups with trait = CANNOT "share the sacrifice" determines their role in negotiations also depends upon how reform is identified and operationally defined, but in a different more intrinsic way, i.e. in ways that are LESS NEGOTIABLE, since the fact that they cannot "share the sacrifice" has to be related operationally to the necessity of reform, for if they could share the sacrifice, reform would be less necessary and, as in the case of the CAN share sacrifice group, more a matter of improvement than a necessity.

This means that, in situations in which reform, as it is operationally defined by those doing the work, is in fact necessary and the workers, in fact, CANNOT share the sacrifice, the outcome of negotiations should meet a higher standard, i.e. whatever workers who cannot share the sacrifice, ultimately end up giving up SHOULD result in MORE REFORM as they operationally define it and that would seem to include those group traits which contribute to the fact that they cannot share the sacrifice, since that is part of what makes reform necessary.

If Ed Schultz failed to mention or refer to anything about the traits of individual member-groups within the Public Sector Unions category, it is a safe bet that he was engaging flamebait in order to drive his click-and-other media assets up.

[county worker]

129. It seems to me that you are just throwing words around without really saying what they mean.

What is reform to you? Why do we need reform? You use that word with out definition and without defining why it is that it is needed.

It's the same as Obama's speech.

[patrice]

134. When people are talking about millions of other people in Public Sector Unions the definition of

reform is going to vary from situation to situation and workers should participate in that definition.

My own professional experiences includes teaching, information technology, & medical services admin.

The reforms relevant to teaching are widely discussed almost exclusively in terms of NCLB which is NOT an authentic standard for reform. There have been grassroots movements toward professionalization of teaching with mentors and master-teachers. You don't hear much about them and I don't know where those movements currently stand. I fear they have been totally overwhelmed by the dysfunction known as NCLB. And then there are education issues outside of that, scheduling, resources, administration/management for which there is no mechanism to discuss them as reform/standards issues at all, but rather almost exclusively as budget issues.

In information technology, I encountered organizations that were spending astronomical amounts of money on management positions that were often completely unqualified and were basically parasites on the backs of the engineers. If I were in a communications union, I would want them to fight for more power for the engineers relative to enterprise type issues and ambitions that aren't the best for the guys and gals who make it work, but rank and file don't often know very much about that situation, other than gossip. Another thing I saw in IT was VAST amounts of assets (code, hardware, personnel, support materials) completely thrown away and customers/clients forced out there into "cloud computing" with little or NO assurance that they were going to get the same functionalities they had been using for so long and no authentic means to address those forms of articulation between user and "the cloud". Again, this is engineering stuff, but it is identifiable and you'd think it would be part of discussions about the work that is being compensated with wages & benefits and again how much of that kind of transition is made known to rank and file? Engineers cannot do miracles, there are situations they can do nothing about no matter what the sales people are saying and that fact impacts everything about what they do and yet, if they find themselves in that situation, it's THEIR fault not the enterprise's. We were also seeing staffing deals that committed the enterprise to so many employees from certain contracting sources, whether they had the right people or not, again something that would impact a given engineer directly but also something about which s/he may know very little.

In medical environments, there are Risk Managers who control how many people are available, what they are doing, what their resources are, and how that is reported to CMS. Risk managers are also known to consult on how to influence CMS surveys. There are medical leaders in this country who are talking about how medical decisions are made. Here's one http://www.medicinesocialjustice.blogspot.com/

As you can see, the reform issues in these different environments are different things, but one thing that might characterize their needs is more transparency within organizations and another would be that the workers who know the work can communicate about that and maintain that discourse longitudinally by means of THEIR OWN authentically identified standards and that's what goes to the negotiations in a more transparent discourse at all levels. Transparency is a big deal, so there's going to be a price. Couldn't workers have more control over what that price is if they first empirically and specifically identify what good work is and how it solves. To me the whole question about who gives what should be answered by FOR WHAT. And if the "for what" is the stuff that is needed to make reform less necessary, then that should be worth something to both sides.

That is, unless we're really just wanting another iteration of the Tea Party to inflict punishment our way, instead of fixing what needs to be fixed. And if that's what we want, we have no bitch coming about those TP crazies and the harm that they cause us.

[Major Hogwash]

148. Try reading for context next time.

Use both eyes.

[county worker]

151. Where does that kind of reply come from? Do you lurk around DU looking for a chance to

piss on someone?

[Major Hogwash]

153. Go eat a corndog!

You corndog eating people have had enough time to whine about it!!

[TBF]

117. Here is the video so folks can watch -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44154101#44154101

[Mimosa]

160. ^ Thanks for the video ( I seldom if ever watch the show ) ^

TBF, that was good stuff. Ed sounds like a 'normal mainstream' Democrat from before the Clinton era. I'll try to catch his program in the future. :)

Ah ha! It's on MSNBC repeat now. :D

[woo me with science]

113. Third Way Democrat. He is not working for us. He is working for banks and corporations.

We still need a primary.

[patrice]

164. Jumping to conclusions without taking situations of individual unions into account isn't Scientific.

[defendandprotect]

2. I'd take Ed for president -- he's done a terrific job these last years fight the right ....

and loved the coverage of Wisconsin!!

[WillyT]

3. Fucking Amazing, Isn't It ???

:wtf:

:banghead:

:beer:

:hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Is this a joke post?

I hope so.

[Horse with no Name]

7. No.

It was what he told a SCHOOL TEACHER when they asked if he supported collective bargaining.:(

[Bluebear]

10. He told unionized teacher that unions needed to support "reform"

7:10 p.m. -- A former teacher asks Obama whether he can do anything to help support collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

Obama, who got big support from unions, celebrates their contributions to American society, from weekends to the eight-hour day -- but also says public unions "should be on the side of reform when reform is needed."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/obama-conducts-town-hall-in-iowa/1?csp=34news

[Brickbat]

12. Shame on him.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elleng]

30. Right, thanks.

Would have been nice if ed had showed POTUS' entire response.

[patrice]

47. If I understand it right, it's the opposite of being anti-collective bargaining. It supports bargain

ing.

[madfloridian]

51. Are you aware of his version of education reform?

It is that of George Bush.

[jeff47]

56. The issue is while he's asking unions to sacrifice

The issue is while he's asking unions to sacrifice:

He's asking wall street for nothing.

He's asking bankers for nothing.

He's asking Republicans to pretty please pass a bill to avoid default in return for nothing.

[enough]

86. That is the issue. (nt)

[theaocp]

89. Let him ask the unions to sacrifice while

TELLING the rest of these richie-rich, greedy-ass motherfuckers to pony up. I guess he can't call them out though, cause then where would he get contributions from? The brigade keeps saying he can do well with small donations, so as Corrosion of Conformity said, "Which. side. are. you. on?"

[oldlib]

97. That is so sad. Wake up! OBAMA.

n/t

[AzDar]

131. ^^^

This.

:thumbsup:

[Horse with no Name]

22. Thank you. I was looking for this link. n/t

[indurancevile]

66. "Reform" = destroy seniority, destroy teachers' unions, destroy wages, funnel public money

to the private sector, to hedge fund capitalists, to the finance sector.

What a phoney he is.

[Bluebear]

83. You said it

[mitchtv]

106. reform this

this guy is single handedly destroying the Dem Party,

[Lorien]

127. Yep, that's the plan

:grr:

[Starry Messenger]

76. Fuck that.

:thumbsdown:

[theaocp]

90. +1

Love ya, Star'!

[tgal]

115. Disgusting.

but not surprising anymore.

[Lorien]

125. So his answer is NO, he does NOT support unions

but he uses political speak to try to get around a direct answer, instead demanding OUR support for his anti-union "reform" (privatization). F*ck that GOP bullshit! He's no Dem.

[Bluebear]

163. +

[TBF]

124. Here is the video Manny -

I wish it was a joke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44154101#44154101

[Riley18]

5. I want to vote for Obama again, but I am union first.

[Brickbat]

8. I hear you.

[Dokkie]

then surely

You should vote for your local dem politician. Depending on Obama to protect Collective Bargaining is foolish. I hate to say this but Obama is just one person

[Necronomiconomics]

68. Me too.

[primavera]

119. I really, really don't want to vote for Obama again

But it looks like we won't be given any choice. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of having a primary to decide upon a candidate, it's just taken for granted that we all want Obama.

[WinkyDink]

140. Solidarity forever. PSEA/NEA.

[Bluebear]

162. Solidarity

[Brickbat]

6. What did he say? I'm not surprised, whatever it was.

[Horse with no Name]

18. I am trying to locate a transcript

because I really hate to misquote...but basically that he felt like the unions need to "sacrifice" when it came to collective bargaining.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Horse with no Name]

25. Backoff. I am not the liar here...but there is one very close by.

:eyes:

[AlabamaLibrul]

69. Here you go:

http://www.fox47.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_1961.shtml

My little excerpt: "I do say, though, to my friends in the public sector unions that it is important that you are on the side of reform where reform is needed. (...) So I think it’s important -- remember we talked about shared sacrifice and burden sharing. Well, this is an area where there’s got to be burden sharing as well."

[in_cog_ni_to]

108. Holy crap.

The Unions are now under his bus. NO WONDER HE DIDN'T DON HIS COMFORTABLE SHOES AND WALK THOSE PICKET LINES! He had no intentions of supporting the Unions in their fights! Shared sacrifice, my ass. :grr:

[SusanaMontana41]

84. He reaffirmed that he stands for nothing. n/t

[Brickbat]

128. Painfully true.

[TBF]

122. Here is the video of Obama speaking -

watch for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44154101#44154101

[xchrom]

9. Political calculations - who to lose & who to gain.

Unions by centrists calculations have no where else to go.

& 'independents' might hear something they like.

Until unions, womens rights, environmentalists, etc - join under a cohesive umbrella - it's gonna be like this.

Each can be divided - each can - w/ certainty - be taken for granted.

[Ilsa]

85. If unions have no where else to go, then they need to understand

that unions, and their supporters, may not go anywhere on election day.

[spanone]

11. post what he said or link please

[Bluebear]

13. Public unions "should be on the side of reform when reform is needed."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/obama-conducts-town-hall-in-iowa/1?csp=34news

[spanone]

23. well, that's not 'suck it up'

[Doctor_J]

142. "Share the burden" sure sounds like "suck it up" to me

:shrug:

[aquart]

146. Yeah, it is. Because there is no SHARING.

Nobody rich is SHARING. Congress has not reduced its perks. CEOs are not SHARING.

The word "share" is the new euphemism for "suck it up."

[scheming daemons]

28. completely different than the portrayal of the OP... unsurprisingly

[newthinking]

82. Actually, if you read the transcript, it was far worse than portrayed - Here

He started off good, but the last half of the discussion he almost completely parroted Right wing ideology. As someone else pointed out, it sounded like something Boehner might say. I agree.

Instead of essentially blaming union employees for their "reputation", it would have been far better to point out the years of propaganda and orchestrated demonizing that has brought us to where we are.


"So I think it’s important -- remember we talked about shared sacrifice and burden sharing. Well, this is an area where there’s got to be burden sharing as well. If a public sector employee is able to retire at 55 with 80 percent of their wages" (Comment: Right wing distortion re-enforced) , "and the average public sector employee has got a 401(k) that they’ve just seen decline by about 20 percent and they have no idea how they’re going to retire, and they’re feeling burdened by a lot of taxes and they don’t feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever" (Comment: Another Right wing distortion reinforced) "to reflect the tough economic realities that are facing folks who are not protected, then there’s going to be a natural backlash. "


"If there’s a feeling that unions aren’t partners ("us vs them" reinforcement) in reform processes in things like education, then they’re going to end up being an easy target" (Comment: They are a target primarily because a purposeful campaign by Republicans of distortions and negative talking points, like are in these paragraphs, . "So there’s got to be an understanding of, on the one hand, we’ve got to revere public employees -- I was saying when I was in Cannon Falls that people are tired of politics, but they’re not tired of government. They may not realize it, but government are our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Government are our teachers in the classroom. Government are the FEMA folks who help people when there’s a flood or a tornado or a natural disaster. (Applause.)


But we also have to acknowledge -- and sometimes Democrats aren’t good at this -- is acknowledging that not every program in government is working perfectly and we’ve got to make adjustments to become more efficient and more productive, just like the private sector does. And the more we’re willing to be open to new ideas and reform and change, the more we’re going to be able to rally public opinion behind all the outstanding work that public employees do as opposed to public opinion being turned against public employees."

[Dappleganger]

92. It is indeed worse.

FUCK that and fuck him for saying it!!

[patrice]

98. I agree with some of this: If unions want power, it MUST be about the work. Please consider

reviewing my journal post at #93 above:

or here's the link - http://journals.democraticunderground.com/patrice

Do you have a link to the transcript you were using, please?

[patrice]

99. It all depends upon what the trade-offs are and the extent to which those trade-offs solve the

factors impacting the need for reform and, hence, shared sacrifice.

I'd say, establish what sacrifices have already been made as part of the price for the RIGHT kinds of reform and I don't see how what the President said disagrees with that principle.

The willingness to do that gives the unions power, not doing it subtracts from their power.

My basic asumptions are laid out in #93 above.

[newthinking]

102. I entirely disagree. What distracts from union power is propaganda

and demonization.

You obviously are not a union employee, or you would know that unions have been in a weak position and compromising for more than a decade. Almost all of the distortions you hear, about the excessive retirements etc, are rare. Most public sector pension plans were modified years ago and do not look like this. The "dialog" is simply untrue and the President should be countering it instead of reinforcing it.

Unfortunately many are too young to understand the context. Capitalism ebbs and flows. 20 years ago almost all military branches could retire at 45-50. Many private sector worker pensions kicked in by 55. That was not because of "greedy unions". It was because we thought we could afford it and thought it was a fine ideal to drive toward. Those contracts have almost all been changed. But people are still living that had them.

It is completely unproductive and dishonest to continue to talk about this situation as if union employees are greedy and have not "sacrificed", because it just is not true. They have just done a better job of holding on to the values we all used to participate in, and they gave up "fast bucks" for stability.

Understand why Republicans distort and use this situation. Politically it is strong vudu. But it really sucks when our own leadership participates in these distortions. And it counters almost all of our core values.

[patrice]

105. I have been a union member as a teacher, so I do know what they are and what their situation is

in at least general terms. And I grew up in a Union family in which the union that my father helped to start here in Kansas, Boilermakers and Pipefitters, was discussed at the dinner table. With bread winners in our family in medical services and construction I hear all of time about the problems that they have that could be addressed if they were unionized.

Re Greedy: False characterizations of what others are saying such as that, i.e. "people are saying unions are greedy", oppress the already oppressed even further. THIS person is saying groups of workers are different, in different situations. It seems pretty improbable to me that ALL unions have fared equally as poorly and it also seems probable that pretending that that is otherwise makes it impossible to go to bat for those who actually are at worst advantage in a situation that is difficult, to say the least, for ALL of them. Saying there is no difference DISCOUNTS the problems of those who are in fact in the worst situations. And saying that people who point that out are saying unions are greedy further devalues unions as a whole.

One of the things that troubles me the most about trying to lump dis-similar things together and talk about them as though all of them have the same problems is that it very definitely obfuscates and distracts from what is perhaps the most important issue out there right now: the right to organize. However the differences between workers works itself out, THAT will be fundamentally affected by the EFCA. Getting people behind EFCA 2.0 will be affected by whether they feel that their particular situations are recognized for what they are and not characterized as being the same position as that occupied by people with very different sets of experiences. For example, CNAs are not in the same situation as communication workers and pretending that they are will affect their participation in efforts supporting their right to organize.

[patrice]

107. It is also possible to conclude that the President's reference to REFORM, and the extent to which

that is a call to the Workers to functional participation in the operational decisions about the standards for their work, has set off a bunch of alarms on both sides of these questions amongst those who DO NOT want that to happen.

[SusanaMontana41]

141. Great post, newthinking.

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[madfloridian]

33. Here is page I found. Horse is right....

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/obama-conducts-town-hall-in-iowa/1?csp=34news

This part really angers me.

"7:10 p.m. -- A former teacher asks Obama whether he can do anything to help support collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

Obama, who got big support from unions, celebrates their contributions to American society, from weekends to the eight-hour day -- but also says public unions "should be on the side of reform when reform is needed."

Education reform he speaks of is privatization, and he knows it. And he is on board with it.

[Horse with no Name]

156. I know.

AND if there is the RARE employee that does indeed retire at 55 (perhaps because of health or personal reasons)...it is because they are like my cousin.

My cousin went to work at the Post Office when he was 18. My cousin is now 48. He has worked for THIRTY years at the same job, he is fully vested and talking about retiring in the next few years.

IF this were a private sector employee...my cousin would be a success story. Instead, because he is a public sector employee, he is portrayed by the President as a slug who needs to "share the burden".

Really. Fuck Obama.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brickbat]

17. Sorry, there's no "support collective bargaining BUT."

Both sides bargain contracts. Breaking a contract is not bargaining.

[demmiblue]

38. What is getting old is your constant yelling and name-calling. n/t

[Erose999]

42. When has he put any pressure on his corporate benefactors to "share the sacrifice"? He might have

given it lip service but every word he's spoken since he entered office has been utter b/s. When you look at his actions he has not lifted a finger toward corporations or the wealthy to have them "share the sacrifice".

[INdemo]

15. I didn't hear him say anything that referred to unions "sucking it up"

He talked about politics and taxing the rich referring to Warren Buffet but did hear or read anything about him saying anything about unions sacrrifice..

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

24. as usual, the OP is misrepresenting something Obama said or did

[Horse with no Name]

72. Post 71. n/t

[sad sally]

But this makes it all better, doncha' think?

And on the debt ceiling, Obama says it's "straightforward" -- he wanted to "solve the problem" and not "play games." (6:41 p.m.)

Obama says he's going to make decisions that he knows "will be bad for me politically" and which will "get supporters of mine disappointed."

There's no universal health care, he says, and the economy isn't completely healed, but it's better, he says.

Obama says that in September, he's going to be "pushing Congress hard." (6:59 p.m.)

Obama says the country is "diverse" and that some "romanticize" about democracy. On Abraham Lincoln: "They used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me."

Obama then says that some of his critics say "he's too reasonable." He tells the Iowa audience to "think about that."

A woman asks about unions and the middle class; President Obama says collective bargaining has brought about great things, like the weekend. "It is very important ... all this is is people joining together so they've got a little more leverage, so they've got better working conditions, better wages," he says.

"A lot of us entered into the middle class because our parent or grandparent was in a union. Remember that," he says. "When I hear this kind of anti-union rhetoric ... I'm thinking, these folks have amnesia." (7:14 p.m.)

[amborin]

19. EFCA gutted & ignored, excise tax on "cadillac" (really chevy) health insurance plans, FTAs, letting

Rahm Emanuel diss the UAW, etc...........................

one example:

Obama bashed McCain for wanting the excise tax on unions' hard fought health benefits;

then Obama turned around and broke his campaign promise; HCR imposes an excise tax on unions' chevy plans

here's Obama promising no excise tax on union plans:

http://youtu.be/s7jZpFuHgDU

[scheming daemons]

26. another post misrepresenting something Obama said or did

You have no shame.

[spanone]

27. no shit. this is becoming the shit on Obama underground

[Bluebear]

62. Lol

[TheKentuckian]

35. Supporting "reform" is no different than "suck it" in all practical application.

Certainly no quote but it is a literal translation. A rose by any other name...

[indurancevile]

67. wtf? he said exactly what the op said he did.

[Go2Peace]

77. He spent good time repeating Republican stereotypes. UGH!

Sometimes he comes off incredibly naive.

Most of his latter points were essentially that it is the Public Union employee's fault that they are targeted. OMFG, every sector has it's problems. That is part of a capitalist society. But most of the conflict is stoked by right wing propaganda. The President should have pointed that out instead!

[Union Scribe]

81. So tell us what he REALLY meant

Without copying and pasting from the WH website, thanks.

[TBF]

116. And you have no substance - where are your cites to refute it? typical. nt

[primavera]

123. Umm, how does the transcript of his speech misrepresent what he said?

[madrchsod]

29. so what else is new?

he likes us when he needs us but when we need him he just ain`t there.

two of his best friends are union busters.

[patrice]

31. Unions DO bargain, don't they? How are we to have an opinion without knowing the specific things on

a bargaining table?

Are Democrats really supposed to take a position that no union is to ever bargain?

If a situation requires change, denying that is not a strong position. Strength comes from the right to organize and getting together on what appropriately advantageous positions would be on the issues.

So if unions are expected to give their fair share for reform, they should be allowed to organize freely without repercussions.

[loyalsister]

48. "bargaining" does imply give and take

When it comes to public unions, Obama's position technically lies on the side of the employer. The closest he really can get to unconditionally supporting public works unions is to serve as mediator.

[patrice]

55. I wish he would do more of that, but he does need a strong match for the employers.

Bringing a partner to the table who acts like the Tea Party does not provide a strong match. Employers should be matched with people who understand what empirical research is, so they can fight with facts and the best information available as their weapons. It's so sad that all of that costs so much money in an environment in which the employers are in the cat-bird seat in that and so many other ways.

This is why unions need the right to organize FIRST.

[patrice]

32. Are you suggesting that unions not bargain when they bargain? so why bargain in the first place?

[Horse with no Name]

43. The gist of the clip on Ed was that he expected them to concede rights

that they had ALREADY bargained for as part of "their" sacrifice.

Joan Walsh and another guest both said that Obama was dead wrong and they couldn't provide him cover for those statements.

[patrice]

45. I'll have to listen to that and get back to this, tomorrow, but off the top of my head I'd guess tha

t the word "rights" is at dispute here and that IS something that unions ARE DESIGNED to work out in terms of the specifics in front of them on the bargaining table. It's called negotiation and it doesn't work if you don't engage in it in good faith.

The only thing I'm concerned about is how the whole negotiation process, and the unions ability function within that process, is affected by their right to organize, which IS a huge problem. EFCA ***1st***, THEN good faith negotiating.

[patrice]

34. Do we want unions to act like Tea Partyers? Not engage reality? Would that be good for unions?

[lynne]

36. Eat their peas?

If I have to eat my peas why shouldn't they? If we're going to have shared sacrifice then it should be shared - not selective based on political party affiliation and support.

[patrice]

41. I find it REALLYsurprising that people think others should do what they could do themselves.

The definition of "could" being the issue here that two parties of negotiators work out in terms of the specifics in front of them.

It's ridiculous to oppose this process and say others should bear the entire price for what YOU want. There are NO grounds to say such a thing, no grounds to say THEY should pay what they can unless one is paying what s/he can too. Without that, it negates the whole case.

I'm a little shocked by the reaction to this.

[patrice]

37. Unions need their Right to Organize. If they are to share sacrifice, EFCA should succeed first.

[theaocp]

91. Common sense overload!

Where the hell do you get off? :sarcasm:

[femrap]

39. Who the hell does

O think is going to vote for him???? Oh! I forgot....he signed up for the ONE TERM....just as TPTB demanded.

Pathetic.

[frazzled]

40. OMG! He said teachers should be paid more!

I watched the video of the Town Hall and I don't know what the fuck people are talking about.

The part about reform? That was EDUCATION reform. He was talking about changing No Child Left Behind not working and about trying new ideas.

[patrice]

44. This is ridiculous. Installment 2.0 on what people don't understand about NEGOTIATING to get what

you need and or want.

[madfloridian]

46. It IS his version of education reform that scares us as teachers.

The new way to change NCLB is to require RTTT standards to get a waiver.

He is fulfilling Bush's policies.

[patrice]

50. Sorry to say that I haven't been following it very closely. I will try to do better. One thing

I think I am seeing here is (and I believe this is in keeping with the man's personality and this trait does appear Republicanish) is that this is a guy who will only do it for you if you are also doing it for yourself too.

This situation with Republican INSANITY hasn't been the best environment for his attitude, because our own decisions about what we will do or not do are so strongly handicapped by what others have and have not been doing for so very very very long and I'm not quite sure that he GETS that affect upon people when he expects us to stand up and fight him and THEM to get things our way.

But anyway, I did just want to say that's about the best explanation I can think of for some of what we are seeing from him. I don't believe he is a wimp. I don't believe he is a Republican, really, but in some important ways he's also not a Liberal. I don't believe he is NECESSARILY hostile to Left/Liberal/Progressive stuff except to the extent that it does not stand up EFFECTIVELY and FUNCTIONALLY FOR ITSELF and do it's own work of representing its own policies. I know people like this, and have worked around them in IT, and have learned what they are really saying to others is "I will respect you if you match me. Provide the reciprocal/complement to my strength. I can't do it for you, because that wouldn't be good for you and what you do and you shouldn't trust others to do it for you." The key is rational functionality, i.e. dealing with the reality in front of us and who better to do that than teachers.

I REALLY hope the Unions are mounting a major fight for the EFCA. There are a lot of answers to stuff like this to be discovered in their right to organize.

Solidarity with U.S. Labor.

[patrice]

54. What does RTTT stand for please? You don't need to tell me about them. I'll just look it up, but I

don't know what that acronym stands for.

Standards were the focus of my MS Ed at KU, so I'll probably enjoy doing the research myself.

If it is what I think it is, I am hoping to see some similar principles applied to Medicare PAYMENT reform, because there's a lot of money floating through Medicare that adds to the top-heavy organizational structures and adds little or nothing of REAL VALUE to the quality of care/life and, in fact, often ends up doing more harm than good. Those are standards of care issues. I know that's a different milieu than education which hasn't nearly the same amount of money floating around to be wasted, plus NCLB doesn't co-relate at all with CMS reporting systems, but perhaps there are some comparisons along other parameters that are related to standards.

[madfloridian]

57. Race to the Top

It refers not so much to standards as to taking failing schools and converting into something else that will be more profitable for business. One of those options is charter schools.

They are caught in the NCLB web and are using the RTTT as a way to get their reform done. The corporate media is mum on the issue, so you have to read bloggers. No one else is speaking up.

[hfojvt]

61. Race To The Top

I just love acronyms.

[CakeGrrl]

64. I'd bet a lot of people who saw Ed did NOT watch or listen to the Town Halls at all.

Just accept the worst news about the President - who needs actual facts?

[TBF]

120. And since you've repeated that inane statement several times in this OP (god knows why) -

here is the video for you to watch: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44154101#44154101

[Horse with no Name]

73. See post 71. n/t

[Go2Peace]

78. He has to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth

He talks about teachers being paid more but supports policies that undermine teacher credibility.

Read the transcript. He started off with a good discussion that pointed out things unions have done, but then the talk deteriorated into something I would expect from the right wing... about how public sector employees retire at 55 and then goes on to explain how basically it is Union member's own fault that the public is frothing.

We all know that is what the Republicans want us to think. The reality is that R's have demonized public sector workers for 30 years. Maybe it would be better for the President to point that out instead of playing into the Right's talking points.

[pa28]

49. That citizen asked directly about collective bargaining rights.

The president responded that public unions "should be on the side of reform when reform is needed."

Candidate Obama promised to stand up for collective bargaining rights just like promising to renegotiate NAFTA. I know he's not a liberal but when it comes to the truth on his tax, trade and labor policy he is quite liberal with that truth. :(

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. I hope that you are listening, Obama

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

58. Dean was Maddow tonight, and he did speak out. There's a post here tonight.

[girl_interrupted]

59. Obama speaks of shared sacrifices,,,so what's his?

Is he willing to do what JFK did? JFK donated his salary as both congressman and President to charity. All of it. So while he calls on the rest of us to make sacrifices, I wonder what his will be.

[Go2Peace]

79. Isn't that obvious?

To really take things on would reduce the nice "after benefits".

Maybe I am becoming too cynical of our current choice of party leadership, but I just don't see him anymore as someone who will take any risk that might affect his personal future in the corporate world.

[madfloridian]

60. Here's a link to Dean tonight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1747404

[CakeGrrl]

63. I wonder how many people actually LISTENED to the Town Halls/Q&A

or just nodded their heads and accepted Schultz's rant as the gospel?

[Go2Peace]

80. I read the transcript.

I don't know if he was trying to sound like all things to all people, or if he really resents public workers, but while he started out good, I thought the last couple of paragraphs sounded just like something Boehner would say. And he certainly spent a fair amount of energy repeating Republican lies about public sector workers, not to mention lecturing the teachers and basically telling them that they are responsible for the public resentment? Really now, why not instead talk about the 30 years of demonizing that preceeded where we are?

[TBF]

118. Watch the video for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44154101#44154101

[Dragonfli]

154. You keep saying that but having listened to it all and having read the whole thing I wonder if you

listened at all to the town hall, it appears to me that you are simply excusing his stance that the teachers should go along with the reform that is threatening their unions and ability to bargain.

Is your problem with comprehension?
Or perhaps your hearing is failing? (try reading the transcript)

Or do you simply believe that it is not important to support collective bargaining and therefore agree with the faux Democrat on this one?

Really I would like an answer after all of the feigned ignorance and spamming that you have been enjoying in this thread.

[markmyword]

65. Sacrifice...

The middle class(what's left of it, and the rest of the
working stiffs(that's if you still have a job), should stop
Obama in his tracks every time he opens his mouth about
sacrifice.

We've done our bit, between breaking unions, letting
Republican governors destroy collective bargaining(which I
think Obama could have made trips to Wisconsin supporting the
unions), trying to reduce Social Security(and two years of
benefits not increased), Medicare, having the NATIONAL GUARD
fight three wars and come home to a government who doesn't
help them,all of this on the BACKS of the little people. The
list goes on and on. 

Someone needs to tell Obama at one of his town hall meetings,
we're done with our half of compromising.Go get the OTHER SIDE
to SACRIFICE!
The rich need to sacrifice so lets..
Tax the rich, NO government contracts to corporations who pay
no taxes, make ALL corporations pay TAXES.
Prosecute ALL the bankers who helped topple our economy, in
order to make money.
Prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Gonzales for
getting us in all these ILLEGAL WARS that have nearly
bankrupted this country. 

Someone should ASK Obama to step down and NOT run for a second
term, that way, the progressives don't have to look for a
third party at this time.

I don't want to hear another speech out of that guys mouth.
He's nothing but a Benedict Arnold in my books.
Joe Biden is feisty a and cares about the little guy, he never
forgot where he came from. I say
JOE BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT.

[TBF]

132. I was with you until you said "Joe Biden". That man is in the banks' pockets

and I wouldn't vote for him either. Of course the only one I could get at all excited about right now is Bernie Sanders. And he usually caves too, but at least he pretends to care.

[AlabamaLibrul]

70. "this is an area where there’s got to be burden sharing as well"

Transcript and video at the link:

http://www.fox47.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_1961.shtml

[blkmusclmachine]

74. Looks like the WH is in active LOSE campaigning mode:

You can't be this out-to-lunch and have it NOT be intentional. Sickening.

[libmom74]

75. +1

It's looking that way isn't it. Trojan horse-go in as a "democratic" president, give the republicans everything they ever dreamed of while making the democratic party look bad and win the next 2 elections in a landslide. Pretty diabolical.

[patrice]

165. And you know enough to claim to be more in-touch than President? Tell us why we should believe that.

[Major Hogwash]

87. Well, maybe there is more than 1 reason to vote for Obama.

Because the Supreme Court has a lot of old people on it.

[jeff47]

88. "The other guy is worse!!!" doesn't get voters off the couch. (nt)

[patrice]

96. BUT - If you don't do X, Y and/or Z is going to happen does get voters off the couch. This is known

as being forced to figure out how to functionally stand-up for yourself and, in the case of unions, one could substitute the word "operationally" for the word "functionally" in the previous part of this sentence.

[Major Hogwash]

145. How many jobs have Republicans created over the last 30 years?

Not many.
You should check out Perry and his comments about jobs.
You'd love it.
Minimum wage with no health insurance.
He wants to do to the United States what he did to Texas.

I'm just not ready to bend over for someone like Perry, sorry.

If your sparkle pony has not arrived yet, you can fill out a request form to see where it is in shipping, and we will use our tracking system to find out how it was misdirected.

[jeff47]

157. And this changes my point how?

"The other guy is worse" does not GOTV. It gets your partisans to show up. But an election between your partisans and your opponents partisans is not a good thing. You want to get those low-information voters out and voting for you.

"The other guy is worse" results in low-information voters saying "A pox on both your houses", and they return to watching TV instead of voting. Doesn't matter if your opponent is Satan himself.

[Major Hogwash]

158. I didn't notice that you had a point, Mr. O'Reilly.

You didn't answer any questions about jobs or the Republicans and how they intend to create them, so I guess your point was moot.

[jeff47]

166. All you're doing is saying "The other guy is worse".

I'm not debating the merit of the Republicans and their ideas.

I'm saying a campaign waged on "their ideas suck" isn't gonna work. You have to give people something to vote _FOR_, not only something to vote against. "The Republicans will fuck up the economy" isn't something to vote for. It's voting against something.

[patrice]

94. Some of this reaction is absurd. Please consider reading my journal post at #93 above.

Here's the link:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/patrice

[in_cog_ni_to]

109. What makes you think he would appoint a Liberal?

I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[Major Hogwash]

147. Because he's a non-white guy.

The next appointment he makes to the Supreme Court will be the most controversial one of all -- he's going to appoint a Kenyan relative of his who is a Muslim and who isn't even an American citizen!!!

And then we'll see if Hillary says "As far as I know" again the next time someone asks her if Obama is a Christian.
Right on teevee.
Where everyone can see her.

[TBF]

133. If that's all ya got it is going to be a long 15 months. nt

[Major Hogwash]

143. What can I say, I'm a single issue voter.

I'm going to vote for Obama because he didn't come after our guns like the haters in the gun forum here at DU said he would for the last 4 years.
Some of those haters have been saying crap here since 2007 about Obama confiscating guns, but it never happened.
There are a lot of haters posting here.

Katt Williams was right about haters. They don't want Obama to succeed no matter what. And he said that before Obama was even sworn in to office!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. WHAT???!!!@#$%^&* This is a joke...... right? I missed Ed last night. This cannot be true.

If it is, Obama is finished.:grr:

[patrice]

100. From the looks of this thread, it appears that the inevitable movement to fracture Labor is well

under way.

Proof? Pretending that a reference to "Public Sector Unions" is a reference to a single group/set-of-traits and anyone who has any differences with that definition is anti-Labor.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

111. Lots of bluster but absolutely nothing to back it up - typical Obama supporter.

nt

[spedtr90]

139. So correct it please. But read the speech first.

[Beacool]

103. And what precisely is Obama sacrificing????

He's now touring the Midwest in a $1.1M bus. He's traveling this week to Martha's Vineyard and he is surrounded by all the accoutrements of his position. Name one thing that this man has personally sacrificed while in office. Ditto for his Wall Street cronies.

:-(

[patrice]

110. As long as one makes it about "them" it will ALWAYS be about them, instead of the

actual problems of actual workers in their work.

It's putting the cart before the horse.

[Lorien]

126. His credibility. nt

[Beacool]

130. Good point!!!

;)

[Major Hogwash]

150. ....

Hillary didn't have any credibility either, but Obama made her his Secretary of State!

[bvar22]

104. I STAND with the Working Class!!! K&R

Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[0rganism]

112. self-delete

2nd one today... too much confusion, can't get no relief, etc.

[TBF]

114. Solidarity with the unions - the ruling class can shove it. nt

[Xithras]

121. Obama has forgotten that unions have only one purpose.

They exist to fight for the betterment of their members.

Not to support Democrats. Not to embrace "reform". Not to push a political ideology. Not to "improve" education. Not to "streamline" government. Not to make government cheaper. And not for any one of a thousand other things that the politicos seem to think they're useful for.

Unions exist to benefit the workers who are their dues-paying members. End of story. ANY union that works against the interests of its members, even for the "greater good", will (and should) be disbanded.

Obama is "management". Unions represent the workers. No union is ever going to work for him and against it's members. If he wants union support, he needs to support the union workers.

[eilen]

155. Why is it okay for corporations to only serve their investors

without thought to the environment, the national economy, their workers, their nation but unions must "accept reform"?

[Bluebear]

135. This is his follow-up to attacking union "Cadillac" health plans

[moondust]

136. How about letting the oligarchs make the sacrifices for a change?

They can afford it and not even notice! Working people have been sacrificing for the past 30 years. It seems the President has lost his scorecard. :(

[B Calm]

137. I'm fucking embarrassed to say I voted for him. You vote for a democrat and get a republican!

[spedtr90]

138. Public unions should not offer financial support

Use the money for congressional candidates.

[aquart]

144. He never belonged to a union, did he?

And where did he ever go to school that would teach him labor history?

[cherokeeprogressive]

167. Nnnnnnope. n/t

[WinkyDink]

171. Never in a union; never in a Civil Rights struggle; never in fear of going to war; in sum,

Obama never experienced what many of his fellow Democrats have.

[renate]

149. who the HELL is advising him?

This is just weird. It's as if they're trying to lose in 2012.

[Mimosa]

161. Bill Daley, for one. n/t

[boston bean]

152. Obama can

[upi402]

159. Obama nees to take to the ones who do NOT share in the sacrifice

and stop piling on the workers with his corporate masters.

[ecstatic]

168. That's a wonderful strategy...

Obama said something we didn't like, so let's vote in the people who want to GET RID of unions!

:crazy:

[Horse with no Name]

169. What has Obama done to preserve or strenghten unions?

He has LOST the support of the unions because he has done NOTHING.

SO...whether the unions are ravaged by the right-to-work states or assaulted without intervention OR support from the POTUS who promised to walk the walk on this issue...or gutted by republicans outright...what is the difference if the end result is the same?

[ecstatic]

172. The end result is not the same

First of all, any pro-union legislation that makes it to Pres. Obama's desk would be signed.

Secondly, the crop of GOP candidates running now would be more likely to ban unions on a federal level, sort of like what Walker did in Wisconsin.

Anyway, do what you feel is best. If it backfires and all unions end up being banned/dismantled, you'll have no one to blame but yourself. It doesn't matter to me either way.

[WinkyDink]

170. There is NO "SHARE"!! Even if the Top Rate went to 50%, the rich would STILL BE RICH!

THAT, by definition, IS NOT "SACRIFICE."