Do we need any more evidence that banks are evil? That the anti-union movement is evil?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
What’s the big deal – I approve of their use of TARP funds to kill card check. I vehemently oppose their aid to unions.
Okay, I sorta get why you’re more concerned with your wealthy clients than with the rest of the world. They feed you. But who the hell is aiding unions?
Spencer, the fact that you like something does not justify inappropriate use of funds for it. That’s just plain stupid. Sorry, but it is.
This is clearly not a proper use of these funds. It is however not at all evidence that the “anti-union movement is evil.” First, I’m not even sure there is a general anti-union movement. And if there is, it is highly fractured. Misuse of funding is not unique to this case and doesn’t taint an entire movement simply because a bunch of banks are being idiots.
(And incidentally, strongly agree with Greg that regardless of position on card checks these funds should not be used for this sort of fight)
People are people. Banks are greedy, unions are greedy, banks like power, unions like power. Both are good, both are bad. People are people people people….
Yes. This misuse of funds should be stopped. Along with the misuse of union membership dues for supporting pro-union candidates.
The trouble is that the foxes are watching the henhouse when it comes to how unions and business spend money wrt elections – governmental and union.
Problem 1: Huffington post, home of woo-meisters and wack jobs (note the anti science stuff that regularly comes from them). BTW how do they get to say, with such certainty that taxpayer money was used on those calls?
problem 2: the proposed elimination of secret ballot. We all know that unions and co-workers would never apply coercive tactics, now, would they.
Unions are not bad, but they are far from a force of truth and justice. Quite likely the US auto industry would not be in such a horrendous condition if they had not absurdly given so much away to the unions when times were good.
Money is fungible. If Citi doesn’t use money marked “TARP”, it’ll use money from some other account, money that was freed up because it got TARP funds. The only way to keep TARP funds from indirectly supporting anti-union activity is to prohibit it to TARP recipients period.
I think that would set a bad precedent. All universities get federal funding of various sorts. A future Palin administration could then try to forbid universities getting federal funds from doing all sorts of things she dislikes.
But we allow this evil as long as we fear the banks and their economic power. When will they become accountable?
1) Right now, banks should not be doing a single thing with their fungable money but dealing with the current crisis. Anti union activities are non-essential (even if you think they are important) in the short or medium term. This is as abusive of their privilege as corporate junkets.
2) Of course there is an “anti union movement” and indeed it is in little bits and pieces everywhere. That is the problem.
Quiz with three questions:
1) How many people in management have been murdered or maimed by union activity?
2) How many people in Unions or their families have been killed or maimed by management activities not counting workplace injuries that wold not have happened had there been union-backed workplace safety rules?
3) Recalculate 2 but to include workplace injuries prior to the implementation of union backed rules?
Much of that is in the past, but it has to be on the table.
Ooh, as long as we’re polling, how many people talking so strongly about the EFCA and what it does have read it and the National Labor Relations Act, which it amends?
Let me guess. One of us. That being you. Right? Are you going to write this up for the rest of us??????
When will they become accountable?
very punny…
Now, that would be telling, wouldn’t it?
We are all looking forward to a post explaining what we are talking about.
Greg, I don’t think anyone sane would argue that we aren’t obviously much better off on the whole with unions than without unions. And I don’t think anyone would argue that there aren’t people trying to substantially reduce many current union protections. But neither of those is an argument that we either need more union protection or an argument against specific adjustments to the laws that apply to unions.
Joshua: I agree. But I also maintain that the banks should not be paying for this at this time. Or corporate junkets. Or new shoelaces. Or anything they don’t absolutely need.
Greg, no argument there. Unfortunately my impression is that the banks aren’t using this money at all how they should be. I’m aware of at least two not so large but well off businesses which are trying to get credit to handle temporary cash flow issues. In one case, the business has a lot of orders and simply needs to be able to order the necessary raw materials themselves in the meantime. In both cases the businesses have so far been told to more or less pound sand. At this point, I’m beginning to think that the banks and the auto industry really both just deserve to fail.
Actually, Joshua, the fact that the people trying to reduce union protection are aided by the lack of penalties in the current law is an excellent argument for EFCA.
Greg, is this something like what you were hoping for?