The Dude wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Time was, unions - particularly trade unions, which used to have a much stronger control over access to certain professions - could intimidate members into voting a particular way. But with union membership where it is now, I am here to tell you those days are over. Unions are like any other service in most respects now - that is, the "customer" (member) is always right.

Really think the amoutn of pressure depends on the union. My friend (concrete/construction) has complained about the pressure from his union the last two election cycles.

also, the service thing is extremely dependent on the union as well. not even sure how you can just generalize like that

I've attended a lot of AFL-CIO meetings in my time and have talked with leaders from lots of Philly locals, but of course there are exceptions to any general trend.

Warszawa wrote:

npr.com wrote:
Football Or Baseball?

Meanwhile, analysts at the ticket-resale behemoth StubHub have found that sports fans in Republican-favoring states buy a lot more football tickets, while fans in Democratic-leaning states buy more baseball tickets. Is it possible that flipping that information around may help us know which candidate will win which state?

In September 2008, both New York and Massachusetts — strong Obama states — had very high "BFRs" (baseball-to-football ratios). Massachusetts had the second highest ratio out of all the states in the nation, according to StubHub data, and New York had the seventh highest. Now, in 2012, the BFRs continue to be high in both states: Massachusetts was ranked fifth in September and New York was eighth.

On the other hand, Texas — a strong Romney state — has one of the lowest BFRs in the nation: More folks are buying football tickets and, presumably, voting Republican. In September 2008, Texas had the 39th highest BFR, and in September 2012, it was 38th.

According to Andy Sevastopoulos of StubHub, back in 2008, the states that bought baseball tickets over football tickets by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio — including Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and New York — all went for Obama. And the states that purchased football tickets in a vast majority over baseball — including Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Idaho — favored McCain by at least a 10-point advantage.

This time around, sports fans in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa and North Carolina have been buying more football tickets on StubHub than they did in 2008, and those in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia are buying more baseball tickets.

I like football, but the sport, its commissioner, and its owners are all very fascist-y. I am sort of kidding, but this was true even in my Dad's generation - he told me how when he was in his 20s, all his liberal friends liked baseball but thought football was for Nazis, etc. Football mimics military structure, which I think of as, generally speaking, a conservative sort of structure.

And while the baseball owners are, as a group, I'm sure very right-leaning (with exceptions, of course, notably Peter Angelos), the NFL's owners have been particularly nasty managers towards their players, particularly lately.

The sport is fascist?

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Dude wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Time was, unions - particularly trade unions, which used to have a much stronger control over access to certain professions - could intimidate members into voting a particular way. But with union membership where it is now, I am here to tell you those days are over. Unions are like any other service in most respects now - that is, the "customer" (member) is always right.

Really think the amoutn of pressure depends on the union. My friend (concrete/construction) has complained about the pressure from his union the last two election cycles.

also, the service thing is extremely dependent on the union as well. not even sure how you can just generalize like that

I've attended a lot of AFL-CIO meetings in my time and have talked with leaders from lots of Philly locals, but of course there are exceptions to any general trend.

talking to the leaders is a lot different than talking to the actual people that deal with being in a union every day.

phatj wrote:The sport is fascist?

don't make me go all george carlin on you

phatj wrote:The sport is fascist?

No. It's fascist-y.

More seriously, I don't think there is any denying that It's kind of like a grand metaphor for war. Wars and militaries are not, obviously, strictly limited to fascist dictators, but I think that if you did a broad survey of those who are deeply interested in war/military history & equipment, you'd find the group skews right-leaning. Insofar as football calls to mind the militaristic, it's not surprising to me that self-identifying football fans might skew a little more right than the population as a whole, if only because NFL football is a pretty "corporate" enterprise (very much in bed with lots of other corporate entities/sponsors, and of course the NFL itself is just a much bigger enterprise than it was even 20 years ago), and you'll have a lot of hipsters/liberal kids who will dislike it on those grounds alone.

And, btw, I'm talking about two of the biggest unions there are in the city. My wife is in one that covers healthcare workers

The Dude wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Dude wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Time was, unions - particularly trade unions, which used to have a much stronger control over access to certain professions - could intimidate members into voting a particular way. But with union membership where it is now, I am here to tell you those days are over. Unions are like any other service in most respects now - that is, the "customer" (member) is always right.

Really think the amoutn of pressure depends on the union. My friend (concrete/construction) has complained about the pressure from his union the last two election cycles.

also, the service thing is extremely dependent on the union as well. not even sure how you can just generalize like that

I've attended a lot of AFL-CIO meetings in my time and have talked with leaders from lots of Philly locals, but of course there are exceptions to any general trend.

talking to the leaders is a lot different than talking to the actual people that deal with being in a union every day.

True, but it does give me insight into how leaders approach their jobs as leaders, and the challenges they face. They all struggle to find & retain membership, to get people to be active, and many (particularly the trades) serve members who are "Reagan Democrats" - they like their unions, but they are also fairly socially and fiscally conservative. If I am running the operating engineers local, I can't necessarily afford to piss off 30% of my membership by constantly banging on to them about who to vote for. And as there are plenty of Republican union voters, it would seem that, if there is a coordinated attempt to intimidate membership out there (and I am sure in a few places there is), it isn't necessarily very effective.

Remember, only the trades really have any kind of legit threat over membership - they could theoretically pull membership from someone, and get them out of a job list. But most of the time, that action can't be taken without lots of due process, and things like, "He votes Republican" won't cut it.

Shop unions, like teachers unions, or auto factory unions, don't even have that threat.

So I think it's very different for an employer, who holds real control over employee lives, to "suggest" who its employees should vote for, than it is for a union. I understand jh's point, but intimidation isn't about what is necessarily possible, but what it is reasonable to feel. Can someone feel that his/her union is intimidating them into voting one way (or doing anything)? Sure. People do, no doubt. But I think that fear is less common precisely because a simple power analysis shows that most unions do not have any authority to change the life of one its members, and most folks in unions understand that. They know that the union can tell them what they should do, but they have zero power enforcement. I don't think that case is quite so obvious when we are talking about employers.

Bottom line: I think it is totally inappropriate for my employer to tell me how he thinks I should vote. S/he is entitled to tell me all kinds of things, but not conduct my personal life for me.

The problem is, many don't have to worry about finding members. if you want a job in my wife's or co-worker's field, you have to join that union.

You're also obviously talking about very particlur unions and generalizing across all.

I'm sorry, but talking to these leaders doesn't mean anything. It's like saying "i talked to a bunch of ceo's, and they all said they bend over backwards for their workers!".

but obiously i don't think an employer should tell you what to think. that was never a point in our discussion.

The Dude wrote:The problem is, many don't have to worry about finding members. if you want a job in my wife's or co-worker's field, you have to join that union.

There are obviously many, many closed shops out there, and I think there are good reasons for that, but that's another discussion.

I guess all I am trying to say is that the union telling you how to vote is one thing, but an employer telling you how to vote is something else again. Why? Because, as RichmondPhilsFan did a much better job than me of explaining above, "at least the union is (theoretically) aligned with the employee's own interests, whereas the employer/management is not."

again, that wasn't part of our discussion. i was just pointing something else out

Was it here that I read George Will calling the Tuesday night debate the best one he's seen in his life? Thought that was interesting, though maybe not surprising--these are two of the more intelligent and engaged nominees we've had, and Romney is probably the best Republican debater I've ever seen (maybe a low bar considering the terminally tongue-tied Bushes and the grumpy old men Dole and McCain). The president isn't at Clinton's level, but he's at least the equal of Gore and Kerry on substance and a much, much better performer.

The Dude wrote:again, that wasn't part of our discussion. i was just pointing something else out

Whatever you say is right.

There, try gainsaying that

please

The Dude wrote:please

just kidding there, Dude.

dajafi wrote:Was it here that I read George Will calling the Tuesday night debate the best one he's seen in his life? Thought that was interesting, though maybe not surprising--these are two of the more intelligent and engaged nominees we've had, and Romney is probably the best Republican debater I've ever seen (maybe a low bar considering the terminally tongue-tied Bushes and the grumpy old men Dole and McCain). The president isn't at Clinton's level, but he's at least the equal of Gore and Kerry on substance and a much, much better performer.

bill clinton was something else

Bucky wrote:The price is controlled...by OPEC controlling production. And they don't just do it to maximize profit, either- they keep it at an optimal point where they get the most profits while still making the development costs of Green Energy unfavorable, to make sure that not a lot of capital is dumped into green development since the positive ROI isn't there.

All quite accurate. That entity is acting in its own interest. It's not exactly a "free market" but it's the market we play in. And buying OPEC oil remains a great deal for us.

And green is nice and all, but the next fuel won't be found for its green-ness; it will be the cheapest fuel available. Politicians will wax poetic over green and activists will swoon, but Barry and Mitt alike understand that our standard of living depends on cheap energy. $4 a gallon may not seem cheap when it was $1.25 a gallon 15 years ago, but it remains a bargain we can't (and shouldn't) refuse. We will continue to waste money seeding "green" energy companies that will fail, but that's all for show.

dajafi wrote:Was it here that I read George Will calling the Tuesday night debate the best one he's seen in his life? Thought that was interesting, though maybe not surprising--these are two of the more intelligent and engaged nominees we've had, and Romney is probably the best Republican debater I've ever seen (maybe a low bar considering the terminally tongue-tied Bushes and the grumpy old men Dole and McCain). The president isn't at Clinton's level, but he's at least the equal of Gore and Kerry on substance and a much, much better performer.

Dan rather said the same. Maddow agreed.

TomatoPie wrote:We will continue to waste money seeding "green" energy companies that will fail, but that's all for show.

Well that settles that I guess

Grotewold wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:We will continue to waste money seeding "green" energy companies that will fail, but that's all for show.

Well that settles that I guess

Pretty much. Greed is gonna find the next energy winner, not Congress