Union workers voted for Brown?

Saw that in a few posts today. That would make sense as it matches the comments that people didn't want their taxes going to pay for health care in others states, considering Mass voters were already paying taxes for health care in their own state. All the attacks on the union health care premium would likely create just this kind of backlash in that typical white male union voter. Top that with the sports gaffes and Martha's kind of stern style -- yep, I can totally see how Brown got elected.

Yes? No? Maybe??

There are two kinds of change elections: positive and negative. We had a negative change election Tuesday. Yes, the message was to "throw the bums out" but the reason behind it amounts to "we voted for change the last time, got a big donut hole for our efforts and are now just voting to express anger." The point of the damn election was to show anger and call the Dems out. That was the point. Union workers did that too.

This was not a vote FOR anything. It was a "plague on both your houses" vote. Scott Brown wasn't elected to do anything. He wasn't questioned about any of his stands. He was the right guy, in the right place at the right time, a perfect political storm. He was elected as a cipher. We know, in the tiny political world, that he is a fraud. The big outside real world thinks we are all frauds, so what difference does it make. It was a cynical election. We feed fuel to this fire of cynicism when we blame the voters for what happened and confirm their worst suspicions about latte liberals. (Latte liberals want to be the smartest guys in the room. That is most important to them. Wicked smart folks but not exactly the people you pick to get your back in a fight.)

Fishermen are blue-collar workers. They feel like they get the shaft from the government and from environmental agencies. Maybe they feel that way because they are getting the shaft. Read me: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/22/review_criticizes_fishery_policies/

Can we ever learn anything from stories like this? Maybe we should listen to people who tell us they have a problem and not lecture them on how to behave. That is the real lesson from Tuesday.

But at the incredible wealth of sheer stupidity that has followed in the wake of Tuesday's election. I have never seen such a steaming pile of dogpoop being passed off as legitimate criticism in my life.

Honestly, my dog has more political sense than most of the self-styled experts who have been commenting. Sandy, who is a true Democrat with actual experience in politics, is worth a hundred of these idiotic pundits and I know she would "have my back" in a fight as I would have hers. She knows something about the world. I don't think the pundits, on and off-line, do.

Just my little howl at the moon. How can people be so damned dumb.

http://bongosuperduty.com/

How condescending can you get!??!

Your dog-oriented post made me think of it; I saw it on the Facebook wall of someone I respect and like, but this just made me cringe.

As for the union issue, I heard a segment on NPR this morning (Morning Edition, maybe?) in which the reporter went down to Virginia to talk to a woman who had been used in a union ad against the Cadillac tax. The story suggested that the unions were using ads and emotion whereas economists were using numbers and facts. So they went and found a university professor economist to talk some sense into this woman. I'm well aware that ads and emotions can be manipulative when it comes to influencing opinion, so I'm, like, fair enough, expecting to be given a dose of reality by this economist.

Do you know what he said to this woman!?!??!!? She makes about 43,000 a year working for one of the big phone companies, I think, and has really bad asthma and needs a lot of expensive meds. He told her that if they taxed her benefit, she'd end up doing better than before because -- get this! -- whatever her employer saved from this deal, they'd immediately and naturally turn around and raise her wages by the same amount. Wha!?!!? Have you guys met a lot of corporations lately (ever?) that are just itching to raise wages? She said she didn't think they were going to raise her salary anytime soon. And he asked, very tolerantly, what proof she had that they wouldn't. She said they hadn't in the last 18 years she'd been working for them. He practically patted her on the head and said he thought they would. THEN he asked her when was the last time she'd needed to use her insurance for something major. She said she'd had to go to the ER 7 years earlier after a car accident. He said, oh, well, then you're probably just losing money with your insurance as it is, you don't need that much coverage. I'm talking about this from memory, so I might have some of it wrong, but I just started yelling at the radio. I mean, honestly, this man has clearly no idea what it's like in the REAL working world.

Actually, I read the argument about raising wages in our senior senator's editorial, a few weeks ago, as he was trying to justify why excise tax was good. I cringed, with all the respect due to senator Kerry (and this argument was written in an editorial, not explained to somebody, but still, ... This is the Gruber argument, and frankly it shows how out of touch some people are with reality (by opposition to theory). I understand the economic argument behind this, but from theory to what it will do to each worker, there is a gap.

Just reading that makes my blood boil. Thank god I didn't hear that while driving. I probably would have skidding into an accident.

Oy! Just how freakin clueless are we? We can't talk to people as if they were idiots. In all my life I have never, ever had a voter thank me for calling them a big friggin idiot. Never. I don't think it's going to happen.

And I might need that voter in the future so I am very reluctant to call them an idiot for good reason.
Arrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh! How can allegedly smart people be so friggin dumb?

Believe me, he sure wasn't! But I guess maybe we can cut a sheltered academic some slack (although I really wanted to slap him!) Still, no one should be making pronouncements and assumptions about things they so clearly don't understand. And I'm sorry to hear from Mass's comment that it sounds like even JK has suggested something like this. In his case, I'm assuming that he's thinking more broadly, in terms of larger market forces and economic trends and such. As opposed to this guy who was literally suggesting to this woman that he thought her salary would go up right quick.

(I dont know if it was Gruber who was interviewed this morning), nothing as condescending as that.

But I remember having scratched my head and thought that, even if true, this was a theorical argument that would certainly not convince people.

Here is the article. As you can see, this not nothing even close to the garbage from the guy on NPR, but still.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x162401

is:

There are only two groups of people covered by plans that cost this much.

1) Top employees, who have individual compensation packages. These are the people who actually are already making large salaries. In their case, they have some leverage with the employer.

2) Union people Here, the union has the same negotiating power they had when they negotiated this package. If they didn't have leverage, they wouldn't have that package in the first place. This woman is essentially saying her union is powerless - and I know that CWA is not.

Mine, essentially, is powerless because they've always been in bed with management. I'd like to hope that bargaining could help this woman (or, at least, that someone making a relatively low salary will be protected) but certainly the way this guy spoke to her was not helpful, in my opinion.

If he were serious, here is what I think he would have done.

1) Before even speaking to her, get the details on the insurance and other compensation that she has. It would be public knowledge because it is a union contract

2) Determine if it is actually above the threshold and if so by how much. Find out how many years of the contract have already been negotiated.

3) Get historical information on wage increases her union won. Get comparable data on non-union workers, with jobs requiring the same level of education or skills.

Then speak to her,

Depending on the information and the proposed law, explain what the effect is. Then have an intelligent conversation that uses the information here and the design of the bill. This guy may have been an economist, but he sounds like he was making things up as he spoke and he was incoherent ... and patronizing at the same time.

Incoherent, unprepared and patronizing. And I hope his best friends are telling him just what that performance sounded like!

So you can decide if I've been exaggerating:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843914&ft=1&f=94427042

But, I will say this, I agree with Valarie. She will end up with less quality care an her employers will pocket the difference. There is no way in hell this savings will tricle down to her unless her employer is forced to do this under the law.

and saying, yikes, that's not good. They then start looking at policies and premiums and really seeing where the fluff is. Corporations start looking at their policies, especially the ones they're using as write-offs and tax-free perks, and rethink their position. And unions start fighting for wages and getting serious about what quality health care really means. Maybe they all even start putting pressure on labs and anesthesiologists and malpractice premiums. So I don't necessarily think it would have played out like the economist said, but I do see how there could be some longterm benefits from the tax.

You know, I think the union could negotiate a raise if premiums fell, but it's not like it's going to be a 100% trade-off and it's not like it wouldn't be a hard fight. The flippancy of this economist says it all. And if this ever gets made into an ad, oy, we're in trouble.

I mean I hope it's more than infatuation and a temper tantrum because Martha didn't dance with them. That's the kind of thing that spreads to the bandwagon voters, after the core voters make up their minds and a storyline starts taking hold. I just wonder how your election would have turned out if the unions supported the health care bill 100%, and the sports gaffes and whatnot had been left to die because nobody had any interest in turning voters against her.

And our fishermen get pissed too, for various reasons.

At times they are more of a reliable voting block because fishing here is rather dependent on clean rivers for the salmon. That is dependent on tight logging rules. So some fishermen will vote for Dems on that basis. Others like the idea of ocean sanctuaries because they've seen the data and are already marketing themselves as supporters of ocean sustainability.

Then there are the others who feel shut out of the process in one way or another, and are convinced everything related to the government is a scam to allow insiders to succeed. And sometimes it is.

election and the unions were making calls, but they could have seeing that the union made that an issue. If the early articles were right that the unions had agreed to not fight if the limit was $25,000, Baucus was an idiot to lower it and risk the firestorm.

I don't think the unions have been a monolithic Democratic vote for years, though they do usually go more than 50% to the Democrats. Here, you have a guy who presented himself like one of them and Coakley really did very little to reach out to them and there may be a wee bit of sexism going on here - though I know it is stereotyping to say so.

The sexism comes out as a secondary, not primary force though. Blue-collar workers can and will vote for women in MA. However, if the candidate is starting to fail or perceived as out-of-touch, then sexism does play a role. that is a secondary role and usually it exists as a force to confirm the consensus that is already growing around a failing candidate.

This just makes the most sense to me of everything I've heard, especially having listened to Tay's take on Mass politics for so long.

And you know, I don't want "my mother" being my Senator either. I don't mean a Mama T kind of mother, I mean MY mother, yikes. lol.

Republicans:

Two Worcester police unions endorse Brown

Giuiani Earns Backing of New England Police Benevolent Association

What it sounds like is that they are voting for Brown for reasons they could have given for Kerry. The last sentence alone says a lot - note that they DO not mention that Coakley did or didn't do so, but the take away is she didn't. I don't know if it would have mattered, but it would fit with other things about not reaching out.

But, if you look at the other things, his guard service is something that makes a connection.

and president of the North Shore Labor Council about his view of this election. My guess is that this is as close of an answer as we will find to this question.


http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/01/22/hey-democrats-remember-us/