This suggests that “union boss” is a term of abuse and/or propaganda, not of analysis. My question here: are there circumstances in which the term is legitimately used?

A boss is someone who can fire or demote you, subject of course to legal and practical constraints. Bosses tell you what to do – if you don’t listen, you get fired. They hold power over you. You don’t elect them, though you may have the ability to walk away from them if the abuse gets to be too much, possibly at a substantial cost.

Union leaders are in most cases elected. If a union is functioning properly, the leaders don’t tell members what to do – members tell them what to do. They can’t get rid of you, but you can get rid of them. In short, they are elected officials, and therefore the servants of members, not their bosses. They are no more the bosses of unions than the President of the United States is the boss of the country.

Now, all of this is how it is supposed to work in the abstract. In reality, there are all kinds of constraints on bosses that may prevent them from firing you. For instance, you may belong to a union that has a just cause contract with the employer, requiring your boss to have a legitimate reason for firing you. Or you may be in a non-union workplace, but you’re such a productive and useful employee that while your boss can fire you in principle, she is constrained by the fact that she would lose money by doing so.

The reality is also that unions are not perfect democracies, just like our political system is not perfectly democratic. There are plenty of union leaders who are incompetent and corrupt, just like there are politicians who are incompetent and corrupt. Union leaders can subvert democratic processes, just like politicians can. Union leaders can try to act as though they are the bosses of the union, just like President Bush acts like he’s the boss of the country. But a key difference between a union leader and the President is that there are many more mechanisms of accountability in place to keep union leaders honest than there are to keep the President honest.

One is that people are free to opt out of their union, while one may not opt out of the legal regime of the country. In many states, individual workers cannot opt out of paying for the benefits that they receive from the union, in terms of better wages and working conditions. This is for the same reason that you can’t opt out of paying taxes, namely, that you’re “free riding” by taking the benefits of collective action without contributing to the costs. Workers who are *really* bothered by the union’s leaders can quit their job, just like if you *really* don’t like the president, you are free to leave the country.

If a majority of workers decide they don’t like the union’s leadership, they can petition to decertify the union. There is no analogous decertification process for Presidents, although there are automatic elections every four years.

Unions are typically guided by elected executive or steering committees, who are above the union president in the decision-making hierarchy. Typically, the highest decision-making body is the membership, which is asked to decide important questions, with the executive in charge of implementing the decision. The U.S. President, on the other hand, is the supreme executive authority. In theory, the Congress sets the agenda and the President implements it; in reality, the President wields a tremendous amount of independent power.

Perhaps most importantly, unions are subject to overall democratic and judicial oversight and regulation. In the U.S., unlike in most of the world, the fundamental rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively are not recognized. Instead, they are subject to legislation. This provides another mechanism of accountability that is lacking in an institution like the Presidency. If unions become too corrupt, the public can step in and impose anti-corruption measures, as it did in the Landrum-Griffin Act.

So overall, characterizing union leaders as “bosses” is grossly inaccurate. There are, however, one circumstances in which it fits, and one in which it maybe, kinda, sorta fits.

With respect to the union’s staff under the direct control of the leadership, they are in a boss-worker relationship with the leaders. They can be fired or demoted by the leadership. This does not make the union leaders the bosses of the union, however, any more than the President is the boss of the nation because he can hire and fire White House staff.

The other situation, the one which kinda, sorta fits, is when a national union imposes a trustee on a local union. Trusteeships are permitted by the Landrum-Griffin Act in order to remedy corruption, mismanagement, or failure on the part of local leadership to run the union democratically. Trustees are imposed by the elected national leadership, not elected by the local, and they can themselves be highly undemocratic. When I was a union steward in UAW Local 2322, I participated in an effort to oppose imposition of a trusteeship on the local by the international. These days, they are highly controversial within the SEIU, with locals of the United Healthcare Workers West accusing the national SEIU of imposing trusteeships against the will of the members in order to control the locals.

That’s why when I hear someone say “union bosses,” I first check to see whether they’re talking about the relationship between union staff and the elected leadership, or about an imposed trusteeship. If they are not (and inevitably, they are not), I pretty much tune them out.

Postscript

I had been relatively disengaged from this blog for the last few weeks. This is not due to post-election having-nothing-to-talk-about, but rather due to me having to write several exams and one major paper. The paper is a linguistic analysis of a dispute between Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun control case about the significance of the word “to”. I will post a link to it once I refine it a little bit and put it on the web, just in case someone is interested in seeing what such an analysis might look like.

Prior to 1933 we had a lame duck Presidency for an even longer period of time.  The passage of the 20th ammendment shortened that period considerably to reflect the then modern changes in our electoral process.  There is no reason we cannot make such a change again.

The last minute laws and appointments President Bush is making no longer have the legitimacy of the vote behind them.  The simplest solution isn’t reforming the appointment process (although one would expect that contrary to Musgrave’s opinion, increasing the executive’s power to fire rather than hire would be the common sense move), it is removing or drastically reducing the period in which lame ducks have the opportunity to oppose the will of the people.

Write to Marry Day!

Arguments in favor of California’s Proposition 8 are a fascinating study in hate apologetics.  Just as with the “life begins at conception” anti-choice movement or the pro-creationism lobby, from the start there is an intense pressure to hide the religious foundations beneath the nearest available logic-like substitute.  It comes down to an often hilarious yet very sobering look into the kind of people who think discrimination belongs in the California state constitution.

The favored defenses of institutionalized bigotry are:

• Cultural Definition/Clarity
• Protecting the Institution of Marriage, Social Role of Traditional Families, Etc
• Claiming Same Sex Relationship are Unnatural
• OMG They Will Make Our Children Gay
• Majority Rule vs Courts
• Protecting Religious Freedom

The first argument goes something like this (DocDodson’s first comment):

Marriage law in this culture represents one thing.
A man and a woman. For clarity another word must be used to represent any other type of union. Specifications reject confusion. Now, Let’s do talk about religion. If you attend a church, would it be a church of God in Christ, or a church of Satan? What if you walked into a building that just said church, and became trapped? You thought it was one thing, but you got trapped in another. Deciet is a horrible thing. Misrepresentation of values, a crime.

I can see why DocDodson is afraid, who would want to become trapped forever in a building that “just said church”?  Its painfully easy to dismiss the idea that straight people might become so confused by marriage in a post prop-8 world they might accidentally marry someone of the same sex.  The cultural definition provides more to go on.  This argument is remarkably similar to the Southern Way of Life arguments against racial equality:

The Southern way of life divided the world into white and black – sacred and profane.  In this sacred way of life, all who were white were viewed as fully human and all who were black as less than human.

The anti-gay movement and the support for proposition 8 shares a lot in common with the racist campaign against equality during the civil rights era, as this brilliant video hack shows (via Amanda at Pandagon):

By taking the Morman Church’s campaign against equality regardless of sexual orientation and substituting in “interracial” for “same-sex”, they’ve effectively shown the true colors of those who claim to champion family values.

Which leads us to the next three arguments, which often go together.  The basic idea is that Same sex marriages somehow:

• Effect opposite sex marriages
• Go against the purpose of marriage, which is to further society (ie make more people)
• Provide an Immoral/Unnatural/Icky Environment for Children

The first point is the easiest to tackle.  One can simply look to Massachusetts, which has a complete lack of “Well, gay marriage is now legal” statements in divorce proceedings.  The opportunity to point out the utter nonsense of this argument is not one to squander.  At its heart is the idea that the actions of some can affect the morality of unrelated persons.  The reasoning is remarkably close to the heart of many pro religion-state marriage partisans:  Its about removing temptation so the weak do not succumb to what they view as sinful.  We need look no further than the tendency of Republican officials – paragons of morality – to seek out prostitutes and other sexual activities they rail against in public.  It is religious conservatives of all stripes who seek to institute a nanny state.

The second point is often lightly dealt with by referring to childless marriages, and offering to institute a deadline for producing offspring for marriage licenses to remain valid.  Anyone foolish enough to walk into this arguing that would be fine by them can be shamed by bringing up the example of infertile couples.

Against the third point there is some encouragement to find in popular culture (Apple Trailer: Breakfast With Scot). This boils down to two implied arguments:  That homosexuality is learned behavior (which feeds into the paranoia about children even being taught same sex couples exist), and that homosexuality is ok “for adults who already are gay, but not for children!”.  The clear implication being that despite all the assurances to the contrary, people who use this argument are really wearing their homophobia on their sleave.  The best thing to do is to bring the discussion back to the biological basis of sexual preference, and to argue so as to bring out their homophobia into the light, where you can then counter that they have no place forcing their fear and hate on the general public.

To quote Comparative Religious Ethics again:

The Southern way of life divided the world into white and black – sacred and profane.  In this sacred way of life, all who were white were viewed as fully human and all who were black  as less than human.  Therefore Southern white morality did not require whites to treat blacks with the same dignitiy that they treated each other.  For a black person to enter the sacred space of white society, except under strictly controlled conditions, was to pollute that space.

The fear and hate of homophobia, combined with the disapproval of religious authority, has had a similarly violent impact on homosexuals.  When people are viewed as hateful, less than human, or a sinful influence, they become objects of aggression.  Opposition to same sex marriage is innately eliminationist in its expression.

We now arrive at the last two arguments for proposition 8, wherein the anti-gay movement tries to have it both ways at once (preservingmarriage.com):

One the one hand, the anti-gay contingent is intent on insisting their religious freedom to believe homosexuals are sinners are at risk, and need to be protected.  They are however quite comfortable with ensuring their beliefs restrict all same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as straight couples.  With regard to their perceived vulnerability to a flood of lawsuits demanding churches marry homosexuals, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to back up this kind of fear (mormonapologetics.org, emphasis mine):

But will it happen? Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages, even when it contradicts their religious convictions?

No one can see the future, but we can look to the past for similar situations. The closest comparison I can think of is the legalization of interracial marriage. I’ve searched and searched, but I can’t find a single case where a church was forced to perform an interracial marriage. From a broader perspective, the same argument could be applied to civil rights as a whole. The civil rights era created anti-discrimination legislation which was applied to public and private institutions, but churches were (and still are) exempt from such laws. The LDS church was free to deny priesthood status to blacks until it decided on its own to end the practice. The government never attempted to force the LDS church to change its policies regarding blacks, even though those policies were racist and discriminatory. The church was never threatened with the loss of tax exempt status for those policies.

History shows that churches will be free to practice their religion, even when such practices are discriminatory. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the hysterical arguments now being put forth with respect to same sex marriage.

Further down in the same thread, there is a link to a California law professor debunking the legal threat:

Kaimi Wenger, a law professor addressed this question in a discussion of the legal issues in California, and his conclusion was that it is unlikely that the Church would be required to perform same sex marriages.

http://ldshomosexuality.com/?p=168

Given that churches have in the recent past successfully barred interracial marriage, I doubt they’ll have much trouble being just as bigoted when it comes to same sex marriage.

This leaves the desire of the anti-gay mob to force their religious beliefs on all Californians.  And they are increasingly acting not just like a mob, but like the mob (SFGate via August):

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

No word on whether or not in addition to being “outed”, supporters of gay rights would wake up next to a disembodied horse’s head:

Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Thursday he has heard from two other business owners besides Abbott.

“It’s truly an outrageous attempt to extort people,” Kors said.

A church is acting like the mafia to protect institutionalized inequality and hate.  Their excuse for doing so is mind boggling:

She called the tactic “a frustrated response” to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the heated campaign.

Individuals act out inappropriately and the response is to extort business owners?  WTF?

Its an incredibly stupid move, and one we can help backfire simply by bringing more attention to it.

I’ll close with this video (through Feminist Law Professors via Samhita at Feministing):

I’d like to draw your attention to a particular scene at the end where one of the “No on 8″ counter protestors attempts to debate with the “Yes on 8″ supporters.  Unable to defend their desire to impose their views on others, they break into a chant, drowning out the lone “No on 8″ activist, literally turning their backs on him.

There is literally no room for nuance on an issue like this.  Supporters of Propostion 8 are on shaky ground with only veiled appeals to theocratic tendencies to lean on.  In contrast the opponents of Prop 8 have their shit remarkably together, and are willing to engage in smart and reasoned discourse.

Equality California has an Action Center and a helpful Ways to Get Involved page.  It also isn’t too late to donate.

The question has been raised (obviously elsewhere, but particularly in this forum) about who should should get the vote of undecided voters in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  What I believe to be the Implicit underlying question is whether to vote for a 3rd-party candidate whose policies are more aligned with popular opinion, such as Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.  The question should be somewhat more nuanced – not “Who should undecided voters vote for?”, but “Where should voters cast their ballot for a 3rd-party?”.  (For those who are having difficulty deciding between Obama or McCain, this response will likely not be helpful.)

Fellow contributor Uri Strauss continues to make the pitch to vote for Ralph Nader, based on the popularity of his platform and the agreement on “virtually everything” of the Democrat and Republican presidential platforms.  There is no question for him, and for many others, as to who to vote for – the two major parties offer few, if any, differences in policy, and therefore we should choose a 3rd-party candidate.

There is a critical assertion made in this argument which should be repudiated because, once repudiated, it would lead to more effective strategies for enacting popular policies in the country, and the world (by virtue of U.S. power).  That assertion is that the U.S. government is a constitutional democracy.  This assertion is false, both in theory and in practice, and left unrecognized, popular movements will face little, if any, electoral success.

Not Exactly a Democracy

The United States, institutionally, is a democratic representative government – not a democracy.  The difference is stark: a democracy is one in which the population decides policy.  A representative government is one in which (in theory) the population selects representatives to decide policy.  The historical necessities or difficulties of either form of government can be debated, but that there is a significant difference cannot, as it is a matter of fact.

The United States, in practice, is an undemocratic form of government, with representatives of the population beholden to the business/ownership class of the country on all significant policy issues.  This is almost indisputable to a majority of the population, as reflected in disapproval ratings of 75% for Congress, and a 27% approval rating for the President.  Overall trust in government is tied with the lowest point, measured in 1973, with only 26% of the population answering the question “are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed” in the affirmative.   Yet another Gallup poll has the satisfaction with the current course of the country at 17%. These are not new (as the source graphs will show) and in a true democracy, would not be tolerated, and certainly not for such a long time.

Trust in US government at 26%

Our Elections are Rigged

Additionally and unsurprisingly, elections for representatives are not free and democratic.  The Supreme Court has ruled that not only are wealthier citizens entitled to more “free speech”, but that corporations, the largest concentrations of wealth in the country, are allowed to use that wealth to influence elections.  That wealth is perhaps the most dominant factor in elections has been true for some time, however these decisions codified that truth.  Other non-legal forms of exclusion of potentially popular candidates compound the difficulty of being a valid candidate.   Because democracy depends on the exchange of information, and because the ability to convey information (via mail, radio, television) costs vast sums of money, it is self-evident that only candidates with money are able to viably compete in elections.  These facts are so uncontroversial that this year’s record projected costs of $1.2 billion for the presidential campaigns and $1.16 billion for congressional races merely underscore the point.

Elections for political offices in the U.S. are not about who is the best candidate – it is about avoiding the lesser of two evils.  Large legal and class forces push elections in that direction, as does the actual voting mechanism: 1 vote for 1 candidate.  The latter could easily be addressed with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is in use in parts of the U.S. and around the world, but for obvious reasons faces great difficulty for adoption in higher political office elections.

So the situation that we are in is one in which tremendous legal and institutional forces, in combination with large concentrations of wealth, shape for us an election in which there are only two viable candidates.  The question then arises: are there significant differences between the two?

Are There Significant Differences?

I’ll leave the discussion as to differences in past elections (Gore vs. Bush, Kerry vs. Bush), but for the current election, I certainly agree that Barack Obama and John McCain are almost on par with the destruction they will wreak in foreign policy, environmental policy, criminal justice policy, drug policy, and many more issues in which they truly are in agreement on “virtually everything”.  However, there are at least three issues which they have nearly oppositional policies which are of great significance to many, if not all, people in this country (and elsewhere).  While this is not a comprehensive description of their differences, those differences are:

• Employee Free Choice Act: Obama is a co-sponsor of this legislation, which would make unionization orders of magnitude easier than current labor law.  With the EFCA, up to 57 million working Americans could form unions, which has historically shown to be tremendous engines of democracy in society.  John McCain opposes this legislation, and would almost certainly veto it.
• Supreme Court and federal courts: The federal courthouses of the U.S. have been filled with extraordinarily right-wing judicial appointments by the Bush administration, as have two seats on the Supreme Court.  The next president will likely nominate between one and three Supreme Court Justices with the three most liberal justices being replace.  Obama has stated that he would replace these judges with ones like them, whereas McCain has stated he would nominate judges similar to the most reactionary Justices on the court now (and in recent history).  These are the highest courts in the land, and no one can reasonably argue that an Obama administration’s choices would be more humane and less rabidly ideological than a McCain administration.
• “Roe v. Wade” and other reproductive rights:  Implicit in the decisions each respective candidate would make regarding the Supreme Court is whether Roe v. Wade will stand another challenge.  In addition, the policies of Obama and McCain regarding other reproductive rights are oppositional on virtually every issue – McCain even continues to support the scientifically-proven fallacy of “abstinence-only education”.  A McCain administration presents a clear danger to women’s civil rights and the basic sexual health of every citizen.

If we are to be rational voters with an interest in doing the least harm to the country, then we must recognize the inconvenient truth that who is elected President will at least have this significant impact on the country.  And if we care about that impact, then we have to do what we reasonably can to get the better candidate elected (Obama, in this case).

This does not apply, of course, if there is a viable 3rd-party candidate.  But, for the reasons given above, and several more, there is not.  Even Ralph Nader does not dispute that he will not win this election.  So we have to consider either Obama or McCain.

Therefore, in states where the election is going to be close (and there’s many this election cycle), “progressives” and everyone else should vote for Obama, and encourage others to do so.  However, in states – such as Massachusetts, with a 55-39% Obama lead – where the vote will likely not be close, folks with an interest in supporting 3rd-party candidates getting a little more even playing field (through access to public funds if they receive 5% of the popular vote) should vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket (McKinney/Clemente is not polling anywhere near 5%).

What Really Matters

The real issue at hand is not a single presidential election – it’s what happens in between elections, and far from Washington D.C., that is important.  Real change, rather than silly electoral campaign slogans, come from engaging and changing the hearts and minds of the population.  The U.S. is a fertile ground for grassroots organizing and massive, truly democratic movements.  We should be spending our time and resources (and far less posts debating Obama v. McCain) focusing on coordinating our friends and neighbors to address the issues that face us and the world.  Howard Zinn recently wrote, more eloquently than I, that:

Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

…None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.

Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those contradictions aside, what is really meant by “experience”?  It appears that many believe that wisdom and competence accrues simply by virtue of sticking around the capitol for a long time.  But there are other connotations the term has taken on, particularly with the emergence of Sarah Palin onto the political scene (I’ll leave the quibbling over whether governorship in Alaska rates as being in the political scene).  Democrats, even many leftists, are now decrying Palin’s lack of “experience” as a fatal flaw of her candidacy.  But I think the attribution is disingenuous, and that “experience” is being used in place of “ideology” and “race” (in the case of Obama).

The Contradictions of Sarah Palin

In Palin’s case, critics are actually being unfair in accusing her of inexperience.  Her background is still incomplete, but we know the following: She comes from what appears to be a working class family (her mother a secretary and father a school teacher) and attended public school.  She worked as a reporter while raising a family.  She became involved in politics at a local level, eventually becoming the mayor.  Within 20 years of graduating from college, she won office as the governor of Alaska.

Palin did these things – as a woman – in a remote part of the country.  Although possessing white privilege, as well as privileges based on her religion and sexual orientation, it is remarkable in this country that a woman raising a family ascended through civic ranks in such a fashion.    She was not born into the ownership class of the United States; not born into wealth, nor a prestigious family, and didn’t benefit from powerful connections gained from attending elite schools.  We can (and damn well better) challenge her ideology, but we should not challenge her lack of time spent in Washington as something that makes her less than qualified.

“Experience” Means Nothing

“Experience”, as interpreted literally in the political dialogue, is virtually irrelevant.  Frankly, we shouldn’t care if a candidate has been a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations or Foreign Affairs when it comes to international policy.   We shouldn’t care if someone has been elected 20 times to their seat in the House.  Winning elections and sitting on committees to not inherenly impart wisdom or even comprehension.  John McCain still doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shi’a, and he’s been in the Senate for 21 years.

We shouldn’t reject Palin because she doesn’t have experience.  We should reject her, however, because she is a terribly ignorant candidate, unfamiliar with even the most basic institutions of U.S. government.   We should reject Palin because she is a tokenistic attempt to garner female support based on identity politics.  We should reject Palin because she was chosen because of her radical right-wing ideology and lack of respect for the rights of others.  We should reject Palin because she is a hypocrite who would likely increase the failures of the Bush administration. And the list goes on.

And if we had any other choice, we should reject Obama – not because he lacks experience – but because he is an unprincipled corporate candidate who says what is needed to be elected.  We should reject Obama – if we had a better option – because he is not an anti-war candidate, but in fact a long-time supporter of the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations and because he actively pledges to escalate war.  If we weren’t forced to choose between him and a Republican slate that would reverse judicial gains won by generations, we should reject Obama as violating his Constitutional oath by refusing to challenge the illegalities of the Bush administration.  And the list goes on.

Who We Need

We don’t need experience in a president.  We need a sane, rational, compassionate person with a willingness to respect national and international law.  We might be better off choosing a citizen, at random, who isn’t financed by lobbyists, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, oil companies, and who isn’t surrounded by advisors who come from centers of power and wealth in the country.  In this sense, “experience” has also come to mean, among other definitions, being approved by sectors of the ownership class in the country.  The nominees from both parties are far too corrupt, far too owned, to view the world in a common sense fashion.  Would it really be a worse system to pick 10 citizens at random, put them on the national stage, let them speak their minds, and let the country choose the best of them?