On the plus side, Philadelphia continues to make Pittsburgh look well-governed.
I think I've already used the Lincoln Steffens quote about Philadelphia being something like the worst governed city in America somewhere in the archives.
Which other cities have been poorly governed in the archives?
Stupid question: granting your point up front on principle, how likely is a transit strike to interfere with most people's ability to get to their polling place? I ask this seriously, as someone who's only set foot in Philadelphia twice. In New York, a subway strike would interfere with getting to work, but most people (or everybody?) I know here are within walking distance of their polling place.
how likely is a transit strike to interfere with most people's ability to get to their polling place?
It's not that; it's that hours of delay or walking or carpooling to get home from work means you miss the chance to vote. Or the time spent trying to get your kids home from school (tens of thousands of Philadelphia kids take SEPTA to school).
Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. here; I had to rearrange my day a bit to make sure I got home in time to vote, and I'm a single suburbanite with a cushy white-collar job and a flexible boss.
There was a last-ditch legal effort by the Black Clergy and the leading DA candidate to get the polls to stay open an hour later due to the strike. It was denied.
5 - true, you may be within walking distance of your polling place but this was announced at 3 am. There were likely many people who went to bed expecting to vote after work who didn't have time to vote in the morning and then couldn't get back to the polls in time at night. Also, people who had planned to vote in the morning but then decided they needed to use the extra time instead to figure out how to get to work.
Too bad Philadelphia isn't really really corrupt. Then the names on the voter rolls would get to vote no matter what the transit situation.
And calling a strike at 3 a.m. means that nobody has time to plan for it in advance. Seriously, I found out about this from a 3 a.m. text message that I get through an emergency-alert service meant to notify you of natural disasters. I saw it when I woke up at 6:30, and then got online and e-mailed the rest of the office, but that's way too late for planning. Most people I talked to found out as they were trying to head to work this morning.
Another issue that people are burned up about is buying a monthly pass (on Sunday, Nov. 1, when it seemed that there would be no strike) and having it be wasted.
I don't much like our transit union leaders either. Or our transit management. I finally gave-up and went back to driving. They say they are revamping the system to improve service on the crowded routes, but I won't believe that until I see it.
But to be serious, did the transit union think it would gain from lower turnout or is this just a case of them wanting a strike soon and it just happened that election day was the soonest they could do it?
13: I have no idea what anybody was thinking, but it may be useful to take into account the folllowing information:
1. This is a contract and political dispute between the 15-member SEPTA board of directors and the leaders of TWU 234.
2. The SEPTA board is made up, 13-2, of people from OUTSIDE Philadelphia (i.e., the suburbs).
3. The SEPTA regional rail trains -- the ones that serve the suburbs -- are not operated by members of TWU 234 and are functioning just fine.
14.last: You guys have actual trains, in the plural? We only have a half-assed trolley and a light-rail system that only goes in one direction.
a light-rail system that only goes in one direction.
That seems like it would be way too costly. Although, maybe the train departs only like once a year or something.
15: Not only that, they have subways too.
15: Yup. All the R routes on that map are rail lines.
(Avert your eyes from that big red arrow in the bottom corner that shows you all the other lines that aren't running due to the strike.)
14.last: You guys have actual trains, in the plural? We only have a half-assed trolley and a light-rail system that only goes in one direction.
They have lots of trains; regional rail, subway, these cute little trolley things....
16: I was thinking there's a plant somewhere in town and it's really a jobs program.
It seems like the people who oppose overhead wires for aesthetic reasons could solve their problem by getting over it.
Do those people have to same objections to, say, electric and telephone wires?
22: But if they fail to get over it, ZAP!
Was there even an election in PA today? If not then the question is moot, right?
Hey ari, I have a question for you in your field of expertise:
I've reasonably familiar with the origins of the Republican Party (I've read a lot on Lincoln). What's not clear to me is how the Republicans of 1856 turned into the Republicans of, say, 1892. Was it purely a matter of power corrupting, that with massive power in the wake of the Civil War they inevitably became the party of wealth? Or was it built into the party's DNA? I know that the Democrats were, post-Jackson, ostensibly the populist party, and that would tend to leave the Republicans with being the party of business, but I never got the sense that the antebellum party was framed that way.
On a more specific note, what was their postwar position on internal improvements? I assume pro-, but then at what point did that change?
Sorry to highjack the thread, y'all.
Was it purely a matter of power corrupting, that with massive power in the wake of the Civil War they inevitably became the party of wealth?
This has always been my assumption, but I'd be interested to hear ari's take.
25: There were elections for all kinds of judges and constables and sheriffs and bailiffs and reeves and aldermen and prefects. And for mayor of Pittsburgh.
And for mayor of Pittsburgh.
Presumably not affected by SEPTA strikes. Or maybe the Main Line is way longer than I realized.
Do those people have to same objections to, say, electric and telephone wires?
At least in DC there's a certain amount of objection to all of it. There aren't any overhead wires in the L'Enfant City, and this is causing some problems with the proposed streetcar lines.
Do those people have to same objections to, say, electric and telephone wires?
Some people do. But streetcar wires are usually denser and lower, and thus more intrusive.
Neighborhoods with underground wires generally have higher property values, ceteris paribus. It's not just a few freaks.
How do streetcar lines affect property values?
IIRC, the Republicans were already a party of business wealth during the Civil War (or at least, non-slavery business wealth), but it didn't dominate the party as much as it would later. I don't remember it very well anymore, but Bensel's Yankee Leviathan lays out the changes in the Republican party from 1861-1877 pretty nicely, with a lot of evidence that the finance sector played a role in shutting down Reconstruction. There were a lot of financial/business/monetary issues during that period that get overshadowed in accounts focusing (understandably) on race and social issues. Bensel wrote another book taking things down to 1900, but I never finished that one. They're both social science academic books, so maybe not the most gripping reads, but both were highly recommended to me.
It seems like everybody was for internal improvements for a while after the Civil War. The South wanted support for their railroads too. Actually, now I'm wondering if significant opposition to internal improvements didn't show up again until recent times. Even opposition to railroads was largely opposition to specific practices like land grants and subsidies and I don't think either party really fought highways or freeways.
32: Don't know, but I bet they're better than bus lines.
I love how you do that, eb. Sometimes I think that you've read everything.
I've read a lot of titles and blurbs and some reviews.
Right, and then you write interesting comments that direct bleggers to books that discuss the question they posed. It is awesome and helpful.
How do streetcar lines affect property values?
They dramatically improve them, but existing residents still tend to oppose the increases in density that accompany them. Plus, at least in the case of DC, there's a strong aesthetic objection to anything that could be said to block a view.
existing residents still tend to oppose the increases in density
Shocking!
Eh,. Public transport strike inconveniences middle class people; world ends at eleven.
Actually it isn't inconveniencing middle-class people, it's inconveniencing people who live in the inner city. 14 to 40.
If the world is ending at the 11, when will we be able to see the film? When?
40 Uh, Witt specifically said that the commuter rail was untouched. So I really don't think that the burden fell primarily on middle class people. Even in NYC, where the middle and upper middle class routinely uses public transit, they tend to be less dependent on it because a) they can better afford cabs, and b) they tend to live closer to their jobs than the poor so cab rides are cheaper in absolute as well as relative terms (speaking of NYC residents only, including commuter rail users would change things significantly).
You just can't say it's only OK to strike sometimes. If you're not one of the workers concerned it's really none of your business.
I'm almost with wispa. It seems like a shitty thing of SEPTA to do, but shitty and 'should be prosecuted' are very far apart. The whole point of striking is that no one is obliged to work if they don't like what they're getting paid, and that really doesn't change depending on how annoying it is for other people to deal with the workers' absence.
Even on the shittiness front, I'd want to know something about the situation more than I do before I condemned it out of hand.
There's a difference between annoying and disenfranchising.
Given all the dirty tricks that occur around voting rights, I believe in setting the precedent that you fuck with people's right to vote, you go to jail. And I'd gladly Sister Soulja these folks to make that point.
25: The Supreme Court race was a big one, most expensive ever.
45: Public employee unions are not auto worker unions.
Also, "it's really none of your business" is as cogent a counter-argument as "you just don't get it."
To answer ereeref's question at 25: yes. DA and city controller, whatever that means.
I'm with Becks and Flippanter. Especially given, as noted above in 9, the strike wasn't announced until the last possible moment. People have a right not to work on terms they don't agree with, but if a taxi driver decided he wanted a higher fare and announced this after pulling to the side of a freeway with no pedestrian access, it would be called extortion, not a strike.
Did somebody say analogy ban? Sorry.
Well, as a rule, I think strikers have a right to plan strikes when they would cause the most inconvenience -- after all that is the point. But there are exceptions, and messing with an election should be one.
55: Wow! I don't think anyone has ever said that before! Thanks, dk!
Foreign readers may not appreciate the dynamic we have in the US, where public worker strikes are met with a public response that is not exactly annoyance at the inconvenience, but more like resentment at what people see as further enriching of the already rich. Since striking or indeed unionization by anyone other than public employees is basically illegal.
Public transport strike inconveniences middle class people and threatens poor people's employment and education.
This is a big, poor city. One out of every 4 people here lives below the poverty line, and the line itself is extremely low. 35,000 students are poor enough to be entitled to free transit passes, out of a total of 78,000 who use SEPTA to get to school.
Perhaps the problem is less with the transit system, striking or otherwise, and more with having election day on a working weekday. I'm sure we've been over this before, but I'm fond of the two-day weekend voting approach.
Since striking or indeed unionization by anyone other than public employees is basically illegal
Wait, what now?
Ned was being sloppy, but if you replace illegal with "fairly easily quashed by employers in practice", I think it makes sense. You don't see a lot of private sector strikes these days other than absolute last ditch desperation moves -- the idea that you might strike simply for a better deal, and not be terrified that you'd lose your livelihood for it, is kind of a public sector thing.
That said, having read the article, I'm agog at the idea that both sides offered a contract that involved pay raises. Of course, the MBTA is in a pretty spectacularly (and, I'm given to understand, uniquely weird) deep hole. The one small union I know best there was the only one of their unions that accepted an offer to defer their negotiated-in-better-times pay raises, in order to preserve jobs - and then there were layoffs from that union anyway.
But it is also true that the reaction of very many Americans to strikes, public union or otherwise, is to bitterly resent the union workers for having things that they do not. I have never been clear how we managed to always have that resentment directed at the employees and not some part of the system.
I have never been clear how we managed to always have that resentment directed at the employees and not some part of the system.
To forestall Emerson, it's because there aren't a lot of media outlets owned by workers rather than by capital.
But it is also true that the reaction of very many Americans to strikes, public union or otherwise, is to bitterly resent the union workers for having things that they do not. I have never been clear how we managed to always have that resentment directed at the employees and not some part of the system.
The same way a lot of women resent men and not "the patriarchy".
(This comment sounds exactly like something James B. Shearer would post, but I don't know how else to phrase it)
The same way a lot of women resent men and not "the patriarchy".
To be fair to women, many of them know me.
The whole point of striking is that no one is obliged to work if they don't like what they're getting paid
I don't know, I kinda see the whole point of striking precisely to impose costs on society and the population-at-large such that management comes under extreme pressure to settle. If the conflict is merely between the relative abilities of workers and owners to endure economic pain, owners will always win.
And yes, when those not directly uninvolved are inconvenienced, damaged, or threatened, they often take the side of ownership against workers. But they may also recognize where they didn't prior to the strike, for example, that it is the transit workers, not the transit authority, that are partly responsible for our ability to vote.
I'm agog at the idea that both sides offered a contract that involved pay raises.
I'm trying not to reflexively give the finger to SEPTA, as often the news accounts can be misleading or outright wrong.
Rendell said the five-year contract spurned by TWU leaders called for a $1,250 signing bonus upon ratification, a 2.5 percent raise the second year, and a 3 percent raise in each of the next three years.
By contrast, our most recent contract was for one year, and we took a 1.9 percent cut + a freeze on the merit increases.
To merge the election-talk thread and the union thread, I had more than one conversation in the last two months that went something like this:
Interlocutor: Wow. Did you read about Bob McDonnell's thesis?
Me: Yeah. Wow. He's got some seriously retrograde views on women, among other things. So, you're leaning towards Deeds then?
Interlocutor: Well, he's a bit pro-union for me. I don't like that one bit.
Me: Uh. Yeah. Workers sure had it better before unions came around.
Interlocutor: Exactly!
Me: [head explodes]
67: I'm trying not to reflexively give the finger to SEPTA, as often the news accounts can be misleading or outright wrong.
Yep. It's not that unions are always right -- they do shitty things as often as any other organization. But coverage of labor stories is almost guaranteed to be garbled, and in a way to make the unions look bad, which means that I withhold judgment until I feel as if I've got a full grasp of what's going on.
re: 67
That's not a sign that the _other_ union is in the wrong, rather, it's a sign that your _own_ union isn't doing its job.
That's not a sign that the _other_ union is in the wrong, rather, it's a sign that your _own_ union isn't doing its job.
Hell yes I'm jealous. What gives me pause is the idea that they were offered raises in the worst economy since the 1930's and chose to strike on an election day rather than the World Series.
But that's taking the news accounts at face value, and I don't have that kind of confidence in the reporting on labor issues.
Sorta depends what they're being offered raises from, doesn't it? I don't know a thing about the situation, but if these are the first raises in ten years, it isn't so appalling.
Actually, I think it isn't appalling under any circumstances, since I generally approve of people getting 2-3% raises annually (if not more). I'll hedge some more and say that maybe in a recession, those could be postponed. Then I'll squeak and run away, because I have no idea what the circumstances really are.
Why is election day a more important event than a school day when kids are relying on public transit to get to school? Strikes are always disruptive.
It does seem a bit short-sighted to strike on election day when lower-income people are more likely to need transit to get to the polls.
WHen I was last in Paris they apparently had it worked out so that only the ticket takers went on strike, so the trains ran but the bosses got no money.
Why is election day a more important event than a school day when kids are relying on public transit to get to school?
Because it's fairly easy to make up a missed day of school?
Why is election day a more important event than a school day when kids are relying on public transit to get to school?
Because phony rituals of fostering democratic participation are assigned importance according to infrequency?
If there were more strikes disrupting more elections we'd have more democracy.
70: Also that state and local governments mostly just don't have any money right now. In the intermediate term and longer, political actors need to get their heads around the idea that taxes need to raise enough revenue to support government operations, but in the short term public sector managers don't have a whole lot of options.
46
... The whole point of striking is that no one is obliged to work if they don't like what they're getting paid, ...
So let them quit. I doubt they would be difficult to replace.
In my opinion public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike period.
I'm probably going on strike next week.
I'm a nurse at Lenox Hill Hospital, on the Upper East Side in Manhattan. Our contract ended, and we have deadlines and requirements put in place for public health purposes, so the timing of the strike is not completely under our control.
We had to give a strike notice 10 days in advance, and the hospital has to pay the scab agency for a full week 48 hours before the strike is scheduled to begin. Thus, if the federal mediator doesn't manage to work things out by Friday, we will be locked out Monday morning for at least a week--no matter what happens.
I can't imagine sitting at home during a disaster knowing that the community is being served by temps, but our licenses don't allow us to just wander around administering care if the hospital and doctors don't agree that we're working for them.
Look, I voted. I'm even a fucking election judge, if you can believe that. And I still know that liberation will never come from the ballot box. Sure, a world series strike would have been preferable to an election day strike -- but that's primarily because the world series means a lot more to most people than the election (especially an off-year election). We need General Strikes -- on Election Day, on Mother's Day, on every fucking day.
P.S. Fuck a bunch of religious bigots in Maine.
In the UK it'd be illegal for them to hire in scab labour to cover a strike. The postal union is currently planning to sue the Royal Mail here for allegedly doing this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/02/postal-strike-union-legal-action
In my opinion public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike period.
To clarify your position a bit: but private sector employees should? And what's your view about General Strikes (the kind wherein, say, a truck-drivers union strikes out of sympathy with a building-trade union's ongoing strike)?
82
I am not enthused about unions in general but find them much more objectionable in monopoly situations as is the case for most public employee unions.
And I still know that liberation will never come from the ballot box.
Perhaps not from, but via.
85: Help! I'm trapped inside a ballot box!
(It is too dark in here to read. Like a dog.)
Help! I'm trapped inside a box at the ballet!
(I'm not wearing appropriate attire. Like wolfson.)
I've never understood the principled libertarian objection to labor unions. Perhaps James B. Shearer could enlighten me? Seems to me it's just a collection of workers voluntarily agreeing to collectively negotiate with management; in other words, the free market of labor in action.
the principled libertarian objection to labor unions
It's not principled. Half of it is just Pavlovian drooling of Reaganisms, and the other half is belief they are bound for Galtian master of the universe status and therefore are honor-bound to express disdain for grubby proletarian organizing.
belief they are bound for Galtian master of the universe status and therefore are honor-bound to express disdain for grubby proletarian organizing
In fairness, this is sort of a principle.
"principled libertarian objection to labor unions"
Try living in a Right-to-Work state. Unions are pretty ineffective unless compulsory.
And as I said above, unions are and should be, tools of rents and coercion not merely on shop owners, sectors, but on society-at-large.
By the right-libertarian position on private parties organizing for the purpose of coercion has always been hazy, because there is no way to prevent it short of some countervailing power, coercing. Left-libertarians eliminate some of this difficulty, warlords for instance, by eliminating private property.
I think we should give the conservatives and libertarians what they want - no collective bargaining allowed. Sorry corporations, every employee you hire has to negotiate with the owners, none of this allowing stockowners to have managers negotiate on their collective behalf. [/snark]
Furthermore, I think it is outrageous that we allow closed shops, we need 'right to own' laws: if some of the owners don't want to pay some of the employees, they should be allowed to not do so, rather than being forced to obey the dictates of the majority.
Try living in a Right-to-Work state.
dob's from North Carolina.
92: And the owners have to handle the exit interviews personally too. That should make life interesting for everyone.
dob's from North Carolina.
Ah, so that explains why he took his shirt off, twisted it around his hand, and spun it like a helicopter.
Given all the dirty tricks that occur around voting rights, I believe in setting the precedent that you fuck with people's right to vote, you go to jail. And I'd gladly Sister Soulja these folks to make that point.
The transport workers have no duty to provide transport to the polls if they don't feel they are being adequately paid.
You are confusing `right to vote' with `right to be transported to the polls by someone else for an amount of money that I choose that may not be what they are willing to accept'.
50: Also, "it's really none of your business" is as cogent a counter-argument as "you just don't get it."
No, it isn't. The only people who have any right or standing to make that decision are the workers involved; if you're not one of them you should kindly fuck off out of their way. Or at the very least, not start your post with "I'm pro-labor" and then go on to explain that no, in fact, you're not.
That implication was the only part I was objecting to, though. I can be on board with the idea that you can't call strikes at 3am on the day, and that it seems like a politically stupid decision for them to make. And if the Governor and Mayor somehow had the power to stop it (and had exercised it before, so they don't object to it in principle) then they're utter crooks for not doing it here, and you should turf them out at the first opportunity.
The root of the election problem here is that you have an absurd system specifically designed to disfranchise as many people as possible (seriously, you have to vote in one exact place, or else? How can that possibly pass muster?). The solution to that problem is to adopt a sane voting system, not to screw over the workers, and it would be a better use of effort to change that than to go to court over this.
Keir is going to be much better at this than I am.
seriously, you have to vote in one exact place, or else?
Generally, no. I don't know what the exact law is in Pennsylvania, but most jurisdictions have provisions for voting in other ways besides showing up at your polling place on the day. And, if you show up at the "wrong" polling station on voting day, you can vote provisionally and once it's shown that you aren't trying to vote twice, your vote is counted.
I dunno, wispa. I thought you made great points.
99: Although now that I think about it, it's probably "around your head". If only Petey Pablo were more articulate.
The only people who have any right or standing to make that decision are the workers involved; if you're not one of them you should kindly fuck off out of their way.
Pro-labor types have a long way to go before they accrue the conversation-ending moral authority of anti-racists, but it's nice to see that you're doing your best. A duck has to quack before it can fly.
I do think it's really awful that most voting occurs on Tuesdays. Weekend voting would be so much better.
101: But at least in NY, if you were planning to go to your polling place on the day, you can't change your mind and vote otherwise. Voting absentee has to be arranged ahead of time.
The only people who have any right or standing to make that decision are the workers involved; if you're not one of them you should kindly fuck off out of their way.
If you want to enforce a norm against crossing picket lines, don't you need to give some thought to convincing the public that you have the moral authority to tell them not to patronize your employer while you're on strike?
106: Right.
Wispa, I'm curious. Are there places where you can vote anywhere in the jurisdiction you like? How is multiple voting in different locations prevented?
it's probably "around your head"
It is, but I realize our folk traditions are confusing to outsiders.
Are there places where you can vote anywhere
American Idol, for one.
109. I'm sure the good folks at ACORN can tell you.
No, it isn't. The only people who have any right or standing to make that decision are the workers involved; if you're not one of them you should kindly fuck off out of their way. Or at the very least, not start your post with "I'm pro-labor" and then go on to explain that no, in fact, you're not.
Disagreeing with striking workers that a strike is called for is incompatible with being pro-labor?
109: Wispa, I'm curious. Are there places where you can vote anywhere in the jurisdiction you like? How is multiple voting in different locations prevented?
Yes. I could vote anywhere in my electorate and cast an ordinary vote, or I could cast an advance vote here or anywhere if I were going to be out of the electorate or unable to make a polling place, or I could cast a special declaration vote at any polling place anywhere in the country on the day. Names are checked off the roll and tallied at the end to see if anybody voted twice, but they never do..
Elections are also on Saturdays. And your employer has to give you time off to vote. And the line last time was about thirty seconds, solely because the person in front of me was chatting with the polling worker. I do not see why anybody would have any other setup other than with the intention of ensuring people would be unable to vote.
you have to vote in one exact place, or else? How can that possibly pass muster?
I think this is, in part, because there are local races that can differ from one polling location to another.
112: Disagreeing with striking workers that a strike is called for is incompatible with being pro-labor?
Yes. It's none of your business.
112: To be fair, the initial post wasn't disagreeing that a strike was called for, it was calling for prosecution of the union leaders.
116: I'll admit I'm not sure whether I think that position in the original post is correct, but 115 is crazy.
At least, if that's followed by the idea that they therefore shouldn't be. You can agree or disagree all you want for yourself.
It is, but I realize our folk traditions are confusing to outsiders.
You only know the words because Noah told them to you.
Are there places where you can vote anywhere in the jurisdiction you like
Hehehehe. Um, you can vote anywhere in New Zealand in General Elections; in by-elections you have to find a polling place to vote in, which I assume tends to limit you to the electorate, but that's just a matter of practicality -- and there are ways around that. I think everything else is done postally.
Disagreeing with striking workers that a strike is called for is incompatible with being pro-labor?
No, but thinking your opinion should lead to action really rather is.
115 was overly brief, yes. I am still saying that only the workers involved have any standing to determine it though. If you're not one of them then what you think doesn't matter as far as the strike itself goes.
And sailors have to be let off ships to vote!
Put this in the "I have no idea what other factors might be involved" file, but turnout in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh and lesser surrounding communities) had 24% turnout yesterday. Philadelphia County had 12%
I told you Keir would be better at this than I am.
You can also vote at New Zealand embassies, consulates, and High Commissions overseas, as well as at Scott Base and I think a few other Commonwealth embassies where we're unrepresented. Or by post.
Seriously though, it's hand. Twisting it around your head would make it hard to spin it like a helicopter without passing out.
In Los Angeles I can vote provisionally at any polling place that has the same ballot as mine. It may even be less restrictive (e.g. vote for State Senate provisionally on a ballot from a different Assembly district as long as I don't vote for Assembly) but I'm not sure.
I am still saying that only the workers involved have any standing to determine it though. If you're not one of them then what you think doesn't matter as far as the strike itself goes.
I guess you're using "determine" in some specific, strong sense that's making me confused. (Actually, this reminds me of some other thread where something similar happened.)
It's possible to be, in general, pro-labor and still think that a given union oughtn't strike under given circumstances.
113: Like I said, advance votes and "special declaration" votes are possible in most, maybe all, jurisdictions in the US. I do get the feeling that you're not voting in a polity with voters numbering in the tens of millions, which is the case in, for example, New York, California, and Texas.
No, but thinking your opinion should lead to action really rather is.
Henceforth I shall hold only such opinions as would, if universally shared, entail no consequence whatsoever. In related news, I shall ascend to the premiership of Pitchfork and be contributing to Slate regularly.
I guess you're using "determine" in some specific, strong sense that's making me confused. (Actually, this reminds me of some other thread where something similar happened.)
In the U.S., only the Supreme Court can decide whether a given strike is a good idea.
Just to highlight some more of the US election insanity for the non-US people here, in yesterday's municipal election where I live, there were four distinct ballots, depending on which ward you lived in - and this is for a city of 75,000. So they're quite picky that you can only vote in exactly one place, lest you be involved in rigging the vote for some other ward's alderman or something. This gets particularly insane when municipal elections and state or federal elections are going on at the same time; instead of something sensible like a federal ballot, state ballot, and local ballot (or even having the election on different days), they make up all the necessary permutations of those for each of the relevant districts. Since state legislative districts, Congressional districts, and municipal boundaries never quite line up, this can mean a dozen or so distinct ballots, again in one medium-sized city.
Those who are saying that this is (a) insane (b) fixable and (c) evidence of a desire to generally keep voting down are probably correct, though inertia really can account for a lot.
You know who the baddest consonant in the alphabet is!
128: Like I said, advance votes and "special declaration" votes are possible in most, maybe all, jurisdictions in the US. I do get the feeling that you're not voting in a polity with voters numbering in the tens of millions, which is the case in, for example, New York, California, and Texas.
And? It's just a matter of scale, and I can't see why resources wouldn't scale with voters. There were 2.3 million votes cast in the last general election, so it's well beyond the level at which it'd be trivial.
It should be universally possible to provide at the very least a reasonable range in which you can vote normally, and to make it as simple as possible to vote outside that range.
"special declaration" voting - otherwise known as provisional ballots, right? - are interesting. They might be an actual improvement, but they're so special-cased that I doubt that they get offered to all the people who need them, and I suspect that when races aren't particularly close they don't even bother to work the process, which leaves my confidence in the whole thing weak.
And in New Zealand every electorate has a different ballot, and every polling place is in two electorates, with separate electors and everything --- it isn't like we're simplistic hicks.
Yes, it is simple, but that's because it has been designed to be simple in order that people can vote.
Special declaration votes are where you turn up at a polling place outside your electorate, or where you aren't on the printed roll. You sign a statutory declaration that you are, in fact, who you claim to be, and that you're not committing any fraud, and then you fill out a ballot paper.
The declaration goes in one half of a special envelope and the ballot goes in the other, and they are collected and sent off to the electoral office to be counted. They are available to anybody who comes in and meets those criteria.
They are also how overseas voting is handled. They definitely do get counted.
127: Again, in the context of the original post, I think 'determine' meant something like 'take official action to prevent or punish'.
88
I've never understood the principled libertarian objection to labor unions. Perhaps James B. Shearer could enlighten me? Seems to me it's just a collection of workers voluntarily agreeing to collectively negotiate with management; in other words, the free market of labor in action.
I am not a libertarian but my understanding would be libertarians are mostly ok with labor unions as long as employers are free to hire outside the union. So if you don't like the wage you can quit but the employer is free to look for a replacement.
Not sure what the general libertarian position on antitrust is. A sufficiently powerful union is as objectionable as anybody else with monopoly power. In practice of course it is easier for employers to combine. I do support the baseball players association since the owners are allowed to collude on wages.
as long as employers are free to hire outside the union
What does this mean? In most industries, an employer can hire whoever they want, even if the employer's workforce is organized. The employee then has the choice of joining the union or being a non-member fee payer.
I do support the baseball players association since the owners are allowed to collude on wages.
Huh? No they're not; the collective bargaining agreement specifically precludes collusion. The owners *did* collude on wages, in violation of the CBA, but they got spanked for it.
(Not that you shouldn't support the players' union. You should.)
144
Huh? No they're not; the collective bargaining agreement specifically precludes collusion. The owners *did* collude on wages, in violation of the CBA, but they got spanked for it.
I meant allowed by law unlike other industries. If Google and Microsoft agreed (outside of a collective bargaining context) not to pay programmers more than $x per hour this would be a violation of antitrust law.
143
What does this mean? In most industries, an employer can hire whoever they want, even if the employer's workforce is organized. The employee then has the choice of joining the union or being a non-member fee payer.
It means you can fire strikers and hire replacements as with the air traffic controllers.
Just on a factual note:
1. Absentee ballots in Pennsylvania must be requested at least 1 week before the election. In principle, they are available only to people who can document that they will be out of their muncipality due to their "duties, occupation or business" on Election Day, members of the military, and a handful of other exceptions.
In practice, the simple attestation that you will be out of the county -- in print, with your signature on the absentee ballot application -- is sufficient. I've never heard of a person being turned down.
2. If you miss the deadline to *apply* for an absentee ballot, there is an emergency procedure for the period 3-7 days before an election. In that case, you must get your signature on the application notarized. (Citation same link as above.)
3. If you miss BOTH deadlines, you can apply for a super-duper emergency absentee ballot* by going to the local Court of Common Pleas.
*Not its real name.
4. Under Federal law, you can also ask for a provisional ballot on the day of the election, at the polls. If you qualify, and IF you cast it in the same county in which you live, it is valid.
It's also important to note that many states in the U.S., particularly on the East Coast are hyperlocal, with literally hundreds of municipalities. Pennsylvania has 67 counties, but 2,567 municipalities. In the most recent election, I voted for judges in statewide races, other officials at the county level, others at the township-wide level, and then my township commissioner, which is based on a ward within my township. My polling place actually has two check-in lines and two sets of voting machines for two neighboring wards, and there is yet another polling place literally across the street.
with the intention of ensuring people would be unable to vote
Ding, ding, ding!
Look, the simple fact is that thousands of people woke up intending to vote, and then discovered that they were unable to do so, entirely because of the actions of the transit workers union, and almost all of those disenfranchised people were inner city dwellers.
Elections are also on Saturdays. And your employer has to give you time off to vote. And the line last time was about thirty seconds, solely because the person in front of me was chatting with the polling worker. I do not see why anybody would have any other setup other than with the intention of ensuring people would be unable to vote.
Why would the people in power want to have large numbers of people be able to vote?
I guess it's true that since I'm not a member of the public employee union, I wouldn't get a voice in whether to go on strike. I can certainly have an opinion, though, and, as a member of the public, have a stake in having my representatives effectuate my views on the subject. If people think they're going to move the public to sympathize with their goals, they'll have to present it a little more clearly than 'fuck you, it's none of your business if I strike.'
Philadelphia is not France, it's not New Zealand, and these people did not strike in a city where inconvenienced people could vote wherever they want.
I don't think you can make out the intentionality element to make a conspiracy to interfere with constitutional rights claim -- not in this case, anyway. But I can absolutely imagine different circumstances where some union (or other organization) might act unlawfully . . .
148: entirely because of the actions of the transit workers union
Look, this really isn't true. If a public transport strike is able to prevent people from voting that's a flaw in the voting system, not the fault of the strikers. Fix the system.
Why would the people in power want to have large numbers of people be able to vote?
Human decency.
Look, this really isn't true. If a public transport strike is able to prevent people from voting that's a flaw in the voting system, not the fault of the strikers. Fix the system.
Yes, and if I take my gun and shoot your dog, it's a flaw in the gun registration system. Everyone knows the rules of the situation. When they decide to strike without warning at the most cruel time possible, they are deciding that utilizing their leverage is worth being being hated and resented by the vast majority of people who have no ability to go on strike at any time. And they certainly don't do any public outreach to try to prevent themselves from being hated and resented. It's a nihilistic situation. In the long run obviously some sort of procedural reform would be good, but no politicians ever mention it.
Human decency.
Where do you find politicians with that?
When they decide to strike without warning at the most cruel time possible, they are deciding that utilizing their leverage is worth being being hated and resented by the vast majority of people who have no ability to go on strike at any time. And they certainly don't do any public outreach to try to prevent themselves from being hated and resented.
This part is obviously true, and I at least have not been disagreeing with it. It's politically stupid of them. It also makes no political sense to prevent specifically your own users from voting.
Regardless, the workers are not obligated to provide their labour on terms they do not find acceptable. That's slavery.
Regardless, the workers are not obligated to provide their labour on terms they do not find acceptable. That's slavery.
I think there are certain instances when you are obligated to perform your job. It's unethical for firefighters to go on strike without some contingency plan. I'm not saying this is as clear-cut, just that it's not slavery to perform your job on terms you do not find acceptable.
Actually, I perform my job all the time on terms I don't find acceptable. I guess I do accept them. But I'm bitter about this weekend and feeling obligated to take kids to a conference and having it monopolize my scant free time and driving eight hours.
The thing is, if the union makes a tactical decision that this strike is the right thing to do, you can disagree that that was the right thing to do. That's one thing, the same way that you might disagree with your mate's decision to marry someone who clearly isn't good for them, or whatever.
But you don't have any right to go further than that really.
The workers withdrew their labour, which is their right. That happened to make life inconvenient for everyone else, yes. The way to fix that is to set it up so that the workers are happy to work, not force them to work.
It isn't the duty of the workers to get people to voting places if they aren't happy with the pay and conditions. You don't get to force people to do things, even if the things involved are morally correct. (Also, how is it the fault of the union alone? The employer could have met the workers' demands, in which case this wouldn't have happened.)
(Wispa is actually saying this all much better than I am, to be honest.)
155.2.2
Then how can you force capital to accept unionized employees?
146.last: Yes, very local. There are four check-in lines where I vote (separate precincts or something smaller than that?) and another polling place down the hill about a block and half.
Workers International of Spellers, I thought that was Ben's shop?
It isn't the duty of the workers to get people to voting places if they aren't happy with the pay and conditions.
When voting circumstances are far from ideal, you don't get to exploit innocent people just because you have an oddball situation of power. Voting is one of those inalienable things.
What a nonsensical comment. People stomp all over each other's voting circumstances all the time in this country. I still disapprove of their decision to strike.
Or more precisely, I disapprove of the people who could have stopped it but didn't, even after recently stopping a strike for the World Series, which I also disapprove of.
Ugh, I think I need to go to bed.
I most royally shall now to bed
to sleep off all the nonsense I've just said
you don't get to exploit innocent people just because you have an oddball situation of power
Quite. That's why you can't force them to work.
It is absolutely true that the political powers who protected a game of rounders but not an election are reprehensible. Vote them out, impeach them, recall them, file racketeering charges, whatever you can manage.
It has to be said that there's hardly any point to striking if it is not going to make a difference in labor output, with a comensurate injury to those who depend on that output. The 1934 Teamster Truck Strike in Minneapolis, which did as much as anything to convert Mpls from notoriously open shop to heavily unionized, started in the winter, during the Depression and involved the trucks that brought coal and heating oil to people's homes. I'd say that's significantly harder on working people than merely preventing them from voting conveniently (and this is about convenience -- it looks like most of the residential precincts in Philly are about 9 blocks or so).
You don't get to force people to do things, even if the things involved are morally correct.
Man, is that ever not true, for a variety of values of "You" and "people" are.
Valuing voter turnout as I do, I'd much prefer the union decided to strike, say, today rather than on election day. Given the relationship between voter turnout and electoral success for the party that, more often that not, is more union-friendly than the other one, I'm surprised the union doesn't agree with me.
Man, is that ever not true, for a variety of values of "You" and "people" are.
Or, rather, you shouldn't force people to work just because doing that work would be morally correct.
Voting is one of those inalienable things.
So is the right to strike.
Industrial rights are as important as purely political rights.
A lot more people have the right to vote in this country than the right to strike, though of course neither is inalienable. Keir's position is admirable.
I am not a libertarian but my understanding would be libertarians are mostly ok with labor unions as long as employers are free to hire outside the union.
This isn't already the case? What if management and union agree in their contract that management only employ members of the union? That was my understanding of how that sort of thing tended to work.
Keir's position is admirable.
Oh, yes, absolutely.
172
This isn't already the case? What if management and union agree in their contract that management only employ members of the union? That was my understanding of how that sort of thing tended to work.
Contracts usually prohibit or restrict strikes as well. I believe libertarians would generally respect contracts as long as management voluntarily chose to negotiate a contract with an union rather than hire non-union labor.
Really, the government itself should have an obligation to make sure each voter can vote.
It is absolutely true that the political powers who protected a game of rounders but not an election are reprehensible. Vote them out, impeach them, recall them, file racketeering charges, whatever you can manage.
Yes. But it is not possible to make this happen within the several hours in the middle of the night before an election. Given a situation which is frozen on any given single day, it's wrong to disenfranchise large segments of the voting population.
I have to admit that I don't understand the tactics -- I'm not getting why the union thought that screwing with the election was a good idea. (Possibilities -- they thought the national attention, even though it's mostly negative, would help them out; for some reason the scheduling was constrained by other factors we don't know about, and it wasn't about the election; they're just malicious idiots; who knows?) But the strike didn't make it impossible for anyone to vote -- the strike made it more inconvenient, which for some people, combined with the fact that their employers weren't going to (or expected by anyone in this conversation) give an inch, made it impossible.
I'm going to worry about constraining a striking union to act against what its members see as in their best interests because they're making it more difficult for people to exercise the franchise at right around the same time I require every employer to make Election Day a paid holiday.