Marionettes of the Left?

University of Missouri law professor Thom Lambert takes aim at the claim by University of Pennsylvania law professor Tobias Wolff (writing at the Huffington Post) that gays should support labor union stances (or, as Wolff puts it, “Pushing back against the current assault on American workers should be one of the highest priorities of the LGBT community today—fully on a par with the effort to secure employment discrimination protections or relationship rights”).

Prof. Lambert responds:

If an expression of support for gay rights and the provision of benefits to gays were enough to create a “reciprocal obligation” to provide support, gay people would have to spend all their time pushing causes!

Which might be fine with Prof. Wolff, as long as they were progressive causes (Lambert notes that Wolfe is not demanding that gays endorse a BP plan to limit liability for oil spills, although BP is on the Human Rights Campaign’s list of “top businesses that support equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees”).

Concludes Lambert:

So, if you’re a gay person and you think collective bargaining by public sector unions is bankrupting state and local governments while fattening the civil service class, go gripe about it to your Republican neighbor over a beer. In doing so, you’ll be promoting the sort of social change that will ensure real equality for gay people in the future.

More. Dale Carpenter blogs:

Wolff’s argument comes from a long political tradition, going back at least to the 1950s, which maintains that gay rights are inextricably tied to a host of causes supported by self-styled progressives—everything from abortion rights to various left-wing revolutionary movements. Lambert is part of an emerging group of dissenters from the dominant progressive tradition in gay politics. It includes people who support gay rights but also support the rights of the unborn, oppose gun-control legislation, want taxes kept low, think social welfare programs are wasteful and counter-productive, doubt the value of national healthcare programs, and so on. They may be wrong about any or all of these things, but it is hardly obvious that sexual orientation—either as a matter of principle or as a matter of political strategy—should dictate the stands they take.

39 Comments for “Marionettes of the Left?”

  1. posted by Tom on

    Gays and lesbians should be single-minded in our pursuit of “equal means equal”, without team-tagging with political parties, unions, corporations or any other group or entity. The NRA should be our model.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    So, if you’re a gay person and you think collective bargaining by public sector unions is bankrupting state and local governments while fattening the civil service class, go gripe about it to your Republican neighbor over a beer. In doing so, you’ll be promoting the sort of social change that will ensure real equality for gay people in the future.

    Well, I’m the Republican in that interaction. You know my union delegate at work told me “I know you’re proud of me, I voted for Carl Palladino [for governor]”?

    Errrr… yeahr, I am very flattered, but being that he knows I’m gay, how did he know that?

  3. posted by Houndentenor on

    Many gay people are fully aware that it was organized labor that formed an alliance with the gay community going back to the mid 70s well before corporate America realized that nondiscrimination policies were good for business. It’s easy enough to attack the abuses of labor unions, and there have been plenty, but many of us are cognizant of what work was like before the labor movement and what it would be like again if the Koch brothers and their ilk had their way.

    • posted by BobN on

      Why do Fortune 500 companies have gay-friendly policies? Because, back in the 70s, academic institutions with unions and public utility companies with unions forged the very first anti-discrimination policies because unions backed the tiny group of gay employees asking for recognition. Then, a few years later, unions in other sectors started to press for the same protections.

      Finally, almost four freaking decades later, corporate America mostly gets it. The GOP still does not.

      Discuss that over a beer with your GOP rep. And makes sure he picks up the tab.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Most companies adopted nondiscrimination policies in the 90s. For those of us old enough to remember working in the 90s, there were so many jobs that companies actually had to go out looking for people to hire. Many companies offered finders fees of several thousand dollars if you referred someone who was hired (and stayed on for some length of time…usually at least six months). In an effort to show how inclusive they were, many companies added these policies. There were also internal employee groups who asked for them. Companies were eager to offer benefits that didn’t cost them anything. Since the companies believed (usually correctly) that they weren’t descriminating against gay people anyway, there really was no reason not to add gay and lesbians to the list of kinds of people the company wouldn’t disciminate against.

        I suspect that it would be far more difficult to get such actions today. Disney only added their policy because they were losing too many gay graphic artists to (then)newer animation companies that were offering such policies in writing. (I also remember ugly letters to one Fortune 500 company where I opened the CEOs mail complaining that they were using the nondiscrimination policies as a recruiting tool for new employees.

        Ah, the 90s. How I miss you!

        • posted by BobN on

          People also forget that one of the prime movers in getting major national corps to adopt gay-friendly policies was city government requiring any company which did business with the city to adopt non-discrimination rules.

          It’s still happening today:

          http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2011/04/metro-approves-anti-discrimination-bill.html

          Companies doing business with Nashville Metro government will soon have to pledge not to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

          The Metro Council approved a bill Tuesday requiring government contractors to abide by that guideline by a vote of 21-15, with three abstentions. A source of controversy in the business community, the bill drew sharp debate from council members Tuesday night.

          And the GOP, as it did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, is voting “nay”.

          If you want to talk about “marionettes”, explain that 21-15 vote. Why would business interests buck the trend of the majority of the Fortune 500?

          • posted by Jorge on

            That’s precisely the point. The culture has accepted the 8-hour work day, the lunch hour, workplace safety rules, and workplace nondiscrimination. You don’t find many places where it is only unions offering those protections; they’re enshrined in the law. Remove unions from the equasion and you don’t lose much. So why should any gay person reciprocate for a movement whose actors are long gone? It’s like the reverse of reparations: all the actors are gone (I exaggerate), but they’re still asking for support for old times sake. It doesn’t that way.

          • posted by Jorge on

            >>It doesn’t *work* that way

          • posted by BobN on

            Remove unions from the equasion and you don’t lose much.

            Jorge, think about it. We’re living in a country where middle-class wages have DROPPED over the last three decades while corporate and investor profits have SOARED. That’s what you get when you remove unions from the equation.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Because they are aware of how gays and lesbians sexually harass their coworkers and then try to get companies stripped of government contracts for punishing such behavior.

            With the full support of unions, of course, who support sexual harassment by gays and lesbians in the workplace and also try to get companies that punish gays and lesbians who sexually harass others in the workplace stripped of government contracts.

    • posted by Jorge on

      And now everyone’s on board, so the union has to revive the old boogeymen in order to stay relevant. I’m not buying it.

      I respect the old union battles from before I was born–in memory. Those of us who are cognizant of what work is like today are not interested in nostalgia about yesterday’s problems.

      • posted by BobN on

        How many chickens can you disassemble in five minutes?

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          More than you can, BobN. Indeed, I did so growing up as one of many jobs I took to work my way through college.

          And in addition to that, I have worked hard and taken advantage of educational and other opportunities to ensure that I have a range of options in terms of what employment I wish to accept.

          You made the choice to make yourself employable only as a chicken disassembler. The fact that you wasted your life and your opportunities doubtless is why you are so jealous and hateful toward those who have more than you do.

          • posted by BobN on

            You really want to go there, ND? Really?

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            I think a human resources parasite has a lot of nerve looking down on people whose career is putting out fires, teaching children to read and investigating crime.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Sure I do, BobN. With pleasure. I’m not afraid of hard work; why are gays and lesbians like you?

            I think a human resources parasite has a lot of nerve looking down on people whose career is putting out fires, teaching children to read and investigating crime.

            Yes, how dare I criticize Bonnie Bleskachek, just to name one.

            Perhaps I should realize that gays and lesbians like Houndentenor really AREN’T able to control themselves sexually and support sexually harassing and demanding sex from their coworkers.

  4. posted by Wilberforce on

    Houndentenor and BobN said it.
    The only thing I can add are questions. What evidence is there that public unions are the ones bankrupting government? Haven’t unemplorment and massive tax breaks for the wealthy and out of control spending on wars and bailouts and a wasteful stimulus played a minor role? And aren’t wealthy folk and corporations hoarding trillions, seemingly to derail living standards for others?
    Finally, it’s about more than what is ‘reciprocal’. That is so typical of a Republican academic, for whom it’s all about me. But there are liberals who support allies not only for a return on investment, but because we’re kin to unselfish, fair minded people.
    Of course, the very concept of fraternity probably boggles the mind for people here.

    • posted by mike/ on

      thank you!

    • posted by Jorge on

      It is not about blaming public sector unions or their workers. Union blaming runs its course every year and I’m a big fan of it; it’s not the reason the tide against them is so high. It’s about everyone taking responsibility and sharing the pain. Business can’t hire people and unemployment is very high. Those people who are working are underemployed with low benefits. Service cuts are all over the place.

      This union slate had a meeting at my office and they were mostly moderate and credible (if much too militant for my taste), but one person made the mistake of saying something like (about pensions), look, they’re in the Constitution: if the state gets bankrupt, we get paid first. Uh, no! How self-centered can you get?

      Tax breaks for the wealthy. Well here’s an idea: people who work hard are tired of being taken advantage of to support the dregs of society. And that’s not just the bailouts, it’s also the fact that liberals love taxes and social services spending.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        So now policemen, firemen and public school teachers are the “dregs of society”?

        And everyone in a union is to blame for some smartass comment from one loudmouth moron?

        Yes, the union is going to have to make some concessions. No one denies that, not even the unions. That’s not what we’re talking about. Now the benefits that were negotiated over the years can be cut with no discussion. Now if the union were refusing to negotiate in light of the state’s budget problems, I would agree with the governor. But that isn’t what happened.

        • posted by Jorge on

          So now policemen, firemen and public school teachers are the “dregs of society”?

          No. I’m talking about the bailouts and social services. Well, okay, I don’t really care that much about the bailouts but I’m sure someone can figure that out. People whining about cuts for homeless services, Planned Parenthood, child care. I think it’s somewhat disingenous that the same side that’s for major social services and taxes is also for union protectionism. The bottom line is that I think if people are going to be for union protectionism in order to promote the interests of the working class, then I’d like to see them throw some of the other guys under the bus first before complaining that everyone’s out to get them.

          And everyone in a union is to blame for some smartass comment from one loudmouth moron?

          That smartass comment epitomizes the fundamental corruption and selfishness of unions these days.

          Yes, the union is going to have to make some concessions. No one denies that, not even the unions. That’s not what we’re talking about. Now the benefits that were negotiated over the years can be cut with no discussion. Now if the union were refusing to negotiate in light of the state’s budget problems, I would agree with the governor.

          Not my union. That is exactly what it is doing–not that I blame it for not wanting to negotiate, but it has a price.

          What pain is the top sharing in? The Bush tax cuts added trillions to the debt and produced precious few jobs (in this country). Where is the responsibility in perpetuating tax policies that do not do what their boosters say they will do?

          I could automatically cite that the “top” provides a very disproportionate share of the total tax revenues in this country, and say you better acknowledge that they’re pulling far more than their weight and we should thankful for their tax money.

          But I don’t even agree with you that the Bush tax cuts were harmful to the economy in the first place. Under NY Governor Cuomo (a Democrat), we’re ending a short-lived millionaire’s tax. It’s not because he likes rich people, it’s because revenues went down because of it.

          Can’t? Corporate America is sitting on record reserves thanks to record profits.

          Record profits? Help me understand how that’s possible with such high unemployment.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            And how about those police that need a union to protect them since they like to drive drunk?

            Good thing the union is there to make sure that pervert firefighters, alcoholic teachers, and drunk-driving police officers are protected from any public consequences for their decisions.

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          So now policemen, firemen and public school teachers are the “dregs of society”?

          Given the examples of what constitute top-line gay and lesbian firefighters, it certainly seems so.

          Good thing Bleskachek had the union to ensure that she was never disciplined, isn’t it? Aren’t you glad that unions protected her and made sure that anyone who criticized her was bashed and run out as a homophobe, aren’t you, Houndentenor?

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Just so I’m clear…it’s fine if the president and vice president have three DUIs between them, but bad for anyone else?

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Just so we’re clear, Houndentenor, you’re saying that when one got a DUI and what their position was at the time is irrelevant, and that a DUI always makes you unfit for your job?

            Will you say that all gays and lesbians arrested for public drunkeness, DUI, and drug use should be permanently marked by it regardless of what job they hold at the time? Or will you now spin and state that that shouldn’t be the case unless it happens when they are in a job in which they are directly accountable for enforcing the laws against drunkenness, DUI, and drug use — such as is the case for the head of the Wisconsin police union?

            That’s what makes you really funny, Houndentenor; you whine and cry about “police officers”, but you support them and their union leaders driving drunk. Why do you think drunk-driving police officers and their union heads are a good thing, Houndentenor?

            Answer: Because you’re a marionette who just repeats whatever leftist talking point is fed you.

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          And here’s a great example of the union-protected public school teachers that Houndentenor endorses and supports.

          On November 23, 2005, according to a report prepared by the Education Department’s Special Commissioner of Investigation, Adams was found “in an unconscious state” in her classroom. “There were 34 students present in [Adams’s] classroom,” the report said. When the principal “attempted to awaken [Adams], he was unable to.” When a teacher “stood next to [Adams], he detected a smell of alcohol emanating from her.”

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Your example is from New York City, not Wisconsin. NYC public schools are a mess and the teachers union there IS part of the problem.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Nope, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think a police officer who gets a DUI should be allowed to stay on the job. Just because I am supportive of unions doesn’t mean I give unions carte blanche. It’s easy to find examples of bad behavior and I don’t condone any of that behavior. None of that has anything to do with taking away pensions that were negotiated in good faith by the unions without allowing them to negotiate for what the changes to the system will be. It’s just one strawman after another with you.

            And no I don’t think someone who had a DUI six months before the election should because vice president. I think that shows a lack of character. And you’d be saying the same thing if that had been true of Joe Biden instead of Dick Cheney.

      • posted by BobN on

        It’s about everyone taking responsibility and sharing the pain.

        What pain is the top sharing in? The Bush tax cuts added trillions to the debt and produced precious few jobs (in this country). Where is the responsibility in perpetuating tax policies that do not do what their boosters say they will do?

        Business can’t hire people

        Can’t? Corporate America is sitting on record reserves thanks to record profits.

        • posted by Wilberforce on

          I’m starting to wonder if it’s worthwhile to argue with the general public. They are so, so ignorant. It’s like trying to fill an empty pool one drop at a time. They also seem to have emotional issues that keep them from weighing the obvious facts.
          And something I learned about right wingers at an old job is that they often have no honor. They lie, you disprove it, and they make up another lie without taking a breath, and without a bit of shame. We think we’re winning a point, but they don’t care, and will just make up something new. Because they have no integrity, they can make it up much faster than we can reply. It’s never ending.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      What evidence is there that public unions are the ones bankrupting government?

      This.

      Gee, what a surprise; Wilberforce’s “progressive” government, owned and operated by the Obama Party, is being bankrupted by the public employee unions, who are also blocking any attempt to fix the problem.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      What evidence is there that public unions are the ones bankrupting government?

      Here’s another fine example.

      • posted by Wilberforce on

        Thanks for cherry picking miniscule scraps while ignoring the major areas of waste, fraud and inefficiency throughout the economy. The rhetorcal games are really too boring.
        ‘First pull the beam from thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to remove the speck from thy brother’s.’
        Open a book, learn the King Jame’s, study Franklyn, Lincoln, Adams, American high culture, logic, and the basics of the mixed aconomy. Then, maybe, we can talk.

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          We understand, Wilberforce. You’re not used to dealing with or seeing facts, which is why you insist that everyone else is lying.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            HR Parasite strikes again, complete with strawman!

            It’s hilarious to be accused of sexual harassment by someone I’ve never met. Or that I can’t control myself sexually. I’ll be sure to forward this to everyone who knows me. They all need a good laugh.

  5. posted by Mark James on

    Dear IGF –
    Please add a share tab so we can link postings to facebook. Also, do you have a contact email address?

    Best
    MJ

  6. posted by Pat on

    I don’t get why the issues of gay rights, unions, abortion, etc. have to be tied together. They are all different, and there are plenty of people belonging to the eight combinations of the above categories. Each has its own merits unrelated to the other issues.

    Unions are taking a hit right now for various reasons. 1. There have been too many abuses and the perception (real or not) is that unions all too often protect incompetent and/or dead wood workers. 2. The realities and perceptions that union leaders are only out for themselves, and really don’t care about those who they’ve been hired/elected to protect. 3. Times are tough, and non-union workers are tired of seeing union workers getting benefits that they are not getting anymore. 4. The justification for unions today is less than what it was 100 years ago when labor conditions were deplorable. 5. It is now more popular than ever to bash unions.

    So now politicians, even Democrats, are jumping on the bandwagon. And that’s fine. Unfortunately, like anything else, this issue is laced with hypocrisy. Example. The county executive of a neighboring county is pushing for pension reform, i.e., wants to cut pensions for union employees, because the county is having financial difficulties, like most. So far, so good. But now we find out that not only is this individual making $150,000 in his public job, he is also collecting a $5,700 pension PER MONTH! And he has the absolute gall to justify it by saying he is doing this for his family. As if the union workers who make less than 1/3 his salary aren’t fighting for benefits for their families. I am still steaming over this bullsh&t.

    Times are tough, and we have to cut and all that. Most of us get that. But how can we even begin to trust politicians who while trying to cut benefits for us common folk somehow manage to keep their high salaries, pensions (which are also higher because they have higher salaries, and hence more responsible for bankrupting us), and health benefits. We have an employer with the hugest debt still paying the most incompetent, selfish, egomaniacs huge salaries with free health care benefits, while now more than half of them wanting to eliminate it for the rest of us. If the current health care reform law is bad, fine. But these hypocrites still have the audacity to take advantage of their free health care benefits with their overbloated, undeserved high salaries. We’ll start believing these lawmakers when they make the same real sacrifices that most of us are doing now.

Comments are closed.