Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Are you kidding? 43 is so gangsta, he'll probably brag at the GOP convention about how he figured out a way to make the gays pay for today's Halliburton bill.

If there were a special tax rate for metrosexuals in committed relationships, Slave would be in Alberta wit' a quickness.

Go Oilers!!!!!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by andViolins
Um, Hello? Mass., like most other states that I know of, DOES allow police officers to form unions. (see, I think, Mass. G.L. c.150E). Public employees in Mass do not have the ability to strike. They do, however, have the ability to go out and have themselves a good old informational picket. That is what they are doing here. A strike is not the same as informational picket, and this picket does not violate Mass law.

Crossing an informational picket line is really not the same as crossing a picket line put up during a strike.

aV

Ahem, you might want to check your sources again. Even in MASS, where I was really just guessing.

http://www.mass.gov/lrc/gb-evolution.html

Maybe you are using the term "union" in a way that Massachusetts specifically does not. The entire history is apparently shown in the link, and you'll note the part around 1958 where the term "except Police" appears. As with, ahem, most other states, that "except" part is still the law. There is a reason the F.O.P. will not call itself a "union" in most places.

Then again, we'd just be arguing about terminology. We both seem to agree that they couldn't strike if they wanted to etc.

And are you saying that "public employees" thing broadly? Is it not limited to emergency service-types and a few others, or does MASS really ban teachers, garbagemen, lifeguards and others from striking too?

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you quite understand what Josh is saying about? Is he going after FT or someone that planted the story to FT?

He has previously said that he and a bunch of other people are working on something big, and now he seems to be suggesting that someone leaked this story to the FT to try to get out in front of the story they're going to run.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Have you read the Voelker interview re. the kickbacks?

No, nor do I know what you're talking about.

That is some shit about to hit, right?

One of the wonderful things about this here medium is that you can "link" to other web pages, letting a reader access whatever it is you are talking about with unparalleled speed and ease.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
He has previously said that he and a bunch of other people are working on something big, and now he seems to be suggesting that someone leaked this story to the FT to try to get out in front of the story they're going to run.

So "Scoop" Brady got scooped?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So "Scoop" Brady got scooped?

That would be true if the story he's working on is the same one as what the FT printed, but he suggests that someone is tossing the FT story out there to muddy things.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis-—that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.

-- My main man, Hon. Antonin Scalia

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
That would be true if the story he's working on is the same one as what the FT printed, but he suggests that someone is tossing the FT story out there to muddy things.

You're on a buddy-buddy basis with him, right?

Details. We want details!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You're on a buddy-buddy basis with him, right?

Details. We want details!!!

A few weeks ago, he wrote:

• I and several colleagues have been working on a story that, if and when it comes to fruition --- and I’m confident it shall --- should shuffle the tectonic plates under that capital city where I normally hang my hat.

That's all I know.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
A few weeks ago, he wrote:

• I and several colleagues have been working on a story that, if and when it comes to fruition --- and I’m confident it shall --- should shuffle the tectonic plates under that capital city where I normally hang my hat.

That's all I know.

Well, if its anything like his entry today

• We are all up in arms right now, it seems, about Vice President Dick Cheney, and the fact that Cheney told one of the more irenic of Democratic senators to "f--k off" in a brief exchange on the Senate floor last Tuesday

I cannot hardly wait. Will he be revealing which Senators wear toupees?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Well, if its anything like his entry today

• We are all up in arms right now, it seems, about Vice President Dick Cheney, and the fact that Cheney told one of the more irenic of Democratic senators to "f--k off" in a brief exchange on the Senate floor last Tuesday

I cannot hardly wait. Will he be revealing which Senators wear toupees?

(1) I think he cares about the "fuck off"story about as much as you do.

(2) It pretty clearly seems that he'll be writing about the Niger uranium thing, no?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
(2) It pretty clearly seems that he'll be writing about the Niger uranium thing, no?

His cloak and dagger marketing approach has definitely peaked my interest.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahem, you might want to check your sources again. Even in MASS, where I was really just guessing.

http://www.mass.gov/lrc/gb-evolution.html

Maybe you are using the term "union" in a way that Massachusetts specifically does not. The entire history is apparently shown in the link, and you'll note the part around 1958 where the term "except Police" appears. As with, ahem, most other states, that "except" part is still the law. There is a reason the F.O.P. will not call itself a "union" in most places.

Then again, we'd just be arguing about terminology. We both seem to agree that they couldn't strike if they wanted to etc.

And are you saying that "public employees" thing broadly? Is it not limited to emergency service-types and a few others, or does MASS really ban teachers, garbagemen, lifeguards and others from striking too?

Hello

Did you read what you linked to? Maybe just the beginning of the time line? If you scroll down, you stumble upon this gem:

1987

Interest arbitration is reinstituted for police and firefighter contract negotiations, with arbitration awards subject to funding by the legislative body.

Last time I checked, police meant, um, police. And contract negotiations usually implies that employees have a collective bargaining agent. That usually implies a union. But hey, I'm just guessing.

As for strikes by public employees in Mass, I again point you to the MAss statute which states, in part:

G.L. c.150E, §9A Strikes prohibited; investigation; enforcement proceedings

(a) No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall induce, encourage or condone any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or withholding of services by such public employees.


aV

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by andViolins
Did you read what you linked to? Maybe just the beginning of the time line? If you scroll down, you stumble upon this gem:

1987

Interest arbitration is reinstituted for police and firefighter contract negotiations, with arbitration awards subject to funding by the legislative body.

Last time I checked, police meant, um, police. And contract negotiations usually implies that employees have a collective bargaining agent. That usually implies a union. But hey, I'm just guessing.

aV

I actually read what I linked to. They noted the exception in 1958 and never noted a change to include the specific term "union" thereafter. It should surprise nobody here that I'm speaking from personal experience. Collective bargaining? Yes. Union? No. Strike? No. I'm not saying they have no similar rights, including many that are included in their collectively bargained contracts. And many are similar to what unions achieve. But I've seen the same 1958-like language in many contexts, and its always been used to state that police can't be in a union.

Which is to say, pointing me to language that says they can collectively bargain, does not negate the language that says they can't be form a union. I'll google it and be right back if I find an explanation of the reasoning for the no-union thing.

I note (before this turns hostile), that my whole quote about "arguing about terminology" specifically covers your retort. You are arguing the similarity of the rights to those of a union, and I'm merely noting that, at the very least, their organization just can't be called a union. For whatever reason.

Hello

ETA: The national FOP site indicates that it was merely avoiding the shame of being a union when formed in 1915. It does not substantively address things like the MASS 1958 exception (which, strangely, I only found for MASS on the internet... weird that). Anyway, aside from the no-strike thing, one of the rather major differences from many traditional unions is the organizational structure. The national is more like a professional organization that does lobbying, political endorsements etc. It does not govern locals. For example, it doesn't take over locals when the leadership has gone bad. Similar to the state/local level. I suspect its related to the union thing in that local govts want to bargain with their sweethearts and not some guy in another state. But there is surprisingly little to be found either for or against my proposition on the internet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Since bilmore and sgtclub were critics of the ad submitted to Moveon that compared Bush to Hitler, I'm assuming that they'll be among the first to complain about the new Bush-Cheney ad that juxtaposes shots of Kerry and other Democrats with Adolf Hitler. If you want to feel icky, you can see it here. Shower not included. If you want to read about it, you can read about it here (hand soap not included).


Not John Kerry.


Not in good taste.