|
<< More on Stern Labor Speech | Main | In Iraq, It's the Jobs, Stupid >> June 24, 2004Arnie, the Tribes & the UnionsOkay, this is kind of bizarre. “The governor’s really holding the line on this issue,” said an elated official of the hotel workers union as we read the news wire report coming in. “This is fantastic,” he added, unconsciously using one of Schwarzenegger’s favorite words.In fact, the tribes offered more money if they'd be allowed to screw union organizers showing up at their reservations, but Arnie rejected the deal, holding firm for tough pro-union rules. Why? Because the state legislature still needs to ratify the deal, and the Dems demanded it. Still, Arnie is proving to be a more interesting political operator that most people-- including myself -- expected. He's pragmatic and willing to deal. Losing to principle is so far not his style. I really hate the spread of gambling throughout our society, but if the need for revenue means that politicians will keep voting to let it happen, then at least I want the jobs to pay decently and be unionized. So Viva Arnie! Posted by Nathan at June 24, 2004 06:04 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI have been mighty suprised at Arnie's record, too. I only wish more politicians were like him. Posted by: Tony at June 24, 2004 12:00 PM But how would this deal square with the NLRB's recent decision in San Manuel, extending the Board's jurisdiction over Indian tribes? I suppose it's no different than standards set by states or cities for their private contractors? Posted by: gj at June 24, 2004 12:11 PM It looks like Ah-nold is getting good advice from wife Maria and State Senator John Burton. Good for Ah-nold. I too hate this growth of "Indian casinos" as it will indeed undermine true community values, but I agree, at least pay workers well and apply the state health and safety rules. Posted by: mitchell freedman at June 25, 2004 12:24 AM Schwarzenegger's behavior is not surprising if you think of him as an Austrian apparatchik from the provinces. European conservatives aren't like Republicans, Austrians are famously pragmatic, and provincial politicians often actually care about workers. Arnie has done a lot of things I don't like, but in him I recognize a certain Volkspartei hack for whom my grandparents used to vote as a matter of course. Posted by: wcw at June 25, 2004 01:34 AM As someone who has been fighting for the lives of me and my disabled boss since we finally learned what Schwartzenneger's original idea of social services policy would be (slash and burn it to cover the cost of the car fee giveback) I am _still_ not sure he has not pulled off a deadly covert coup, but from all appearences now it looks like he has allowed disabled people and their supporters to fight for and win retention of their most vital services. I am an IHSS care provider; this means that my disabled boss was able to hire me herself and controls my work--I basically see myself as the "Swiss Army knife" of access, doing for her whatever she needs done to live her life as she sees fit. For over 12 years I did this for _minimum wage_. Only in the past 2 years have I been paid more than that and I still cannot practically access the health benefits I theoretically have now. But as a matter of _principle_ Arnold wanted to slash us back to minimum wage, on the theory that any budget growth whatsoever at any time that did not result in more hours of service (I supply 283 a month) was wrong. In short people who do what we do must stay at minimum wage forever. He is still _saying_ this. In the Legislature this proposal (and others which would _reduce_ the hours disabled people were covered for, so much for their concern for the services, eh?) died in both houses in committee but I still don't know if Arnold won't draw a last minute line there or not. I have reason to hope not. So on one hand--this is no pro-labor governor. At any rate he is still willing to hold in contempt the kind of work we at the bottom of the ladder do, and credit himself with sensitivity to the needs of disabled people by telling them they can and should demand more for less, when even those of us who did get raises are far short of a living wage. On the other--if he lets it ride the way the Legislature is offering now, there is no question that we are dealing with a reasonable leader. It is a terrible shame the Democratic party has not done better! Arnold remains a Republican. What he and his appointees are pushing _for_ is more privilege for wealth and more privations on poor people. The improvement is, if people fight and present a case, they react respectfully to that. Well, you had better read the fine print on their olive branches because the pattern has been to bludgeon first with outrageous demands, then try to get the same results while appearing to back down, then finally to offer a real deal. You have to keep fighting and we still don't know what the final outcome will be. But Arnold has it in his grasp to go down as one of California's great moderate Republican governors. At this rate he might well wind up Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by 2020 or so. Posted by: Mark at June 25, 2004 04:13 AM Mark has it right -- Arnold's administration is, more than anything else, a manifestation of the scandalous lack of care that California Democrats demonstrated towards good governance and sensible policy. One of the more pleasant features of American politics for me is the way that the voters of Democratic strongholds eventually come to realize the value in having a tough Republican executive to keep the throngs of liberal Democrats in line. And, even better, those Republican executives in liberal places are also a check on the throngs of much-more-conservative guys in the Republican Party. There's no question that the need to keep Bloomberg, Pataki and Schwarzenneger happy is going to have a material effect on Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney, and that's for the best. Posted by: Matthew Dundon at June 25, 2004 01:09 PM Let me clarify! It _worries_ me that Democrats don't have a better track record of executive leadership; I am trying to figure out why it is. In the context of the modern Republican party's ideological positions, I don't see it as a _healthy_ check at all. I suspect that wcw is perfectly right; Arnold is decent because he is foreign-born, not fully steeped in our terminally ill political culture. The last 2 Republican governors of this state (who ruled between them for _16 years straight_) imposed fiscal and ideological straightjackets that are at the root of California's chronic crisis. It isn't because we outspend all the other states--we don't. It is because the richest people have devoted themselves singlemindedly to fighting taxes on their wealth, never mind how much of it they owe to California's infrastructure. And yet to remain in power it was never enough to rest on this kind of conservatism; Deukmejian and Wilson (remember, he was supposed to be a pragmatic moderate too, just like Schwarzennegger) got down in the mud and endorsed the worst kinds of bigotry to energize their trogoldyte base. You know that little problem I was having surviving on minimum wage? Guess who was most opposed to one cent increase of that? Who vetoed a bill that would have given me a dollar or so up from that in 1998? Ironically the outcome of that was the development of the elaborate system of IHSS public authorities to manage the eventual wage/benefit increases that did get funded. I was pretty disappointed we had to go through this labrynthine process that took three years or so to lay all the groundwork before it could happen but when it did the increase was probably more than I could have expected the Legislature to just grant, and now it is much harder politically to cut the wages back by simple fiat. And the structure accomplishes a lot else at a low price, and presents the unions with a tough bargaining partner--like I say it is still not a living wage, I could earn more money being a bus boy in Reno, nor are the health benefits accessible being rationed by hassle. Basically it stabilizes the system, a system we were able to defend with a lot of true arguments that it embodies conservative values (minimal bureacratic overhead, consumer choice, state initiatve--it had zero federal support for 20 years!) and was enacted by Ronald Reagan as governor. It may be that Arnold will foster the moderate wing of the Republicans and they will deliver reasonable policy. But so far he has been largely enacting policies moderate _Democrats_ have been trying to get only to be fought relentlessly by the ruthless Republican minority. I was profoundly disappointed Gray Davis did not fight more effectively for progressive policy or even for that matter his own political career. I never could figure out why he treated his friends and allies the way he did. But I didn't want him to make friends with Republicans, it seemed to me he did far too much of that and the result was much the same as when Clinton strove to mollify R's--they reacted like sharks smelling blood. The "wisdom" of putting a Republican executive in is that the Republicans, who are willing and able to shut government down if they don't get their way in everything, won't be trying to take him out 24/7/365 as their sole priority. In short we are skewed toward Republican minority dictatorship--you bet my preferred solution is to expose their corruption and get them all out of office. But sadly too many Democrats are vulnerable to similiar criticism. It was not just partisanship for me either--I expected Davis to roll back a number of disasterous policies imposed on us by sheer Republican ideology, notably the outrageous power privatization scheme that was rotten on the face of it when it first was passed, and with Davis in office demonstrated its sheer perversity. It should have been the easiest thing in the world for Davis to damn the system as the corporate giveaway it was, point out the role of Republican influence and ideology in it and the bankruptcy of the latter in the face of this demonstration of the perversity of markets and the conflict of interest between concentrated wealth and the public interest. To do that of course he and other Democrats who had supported the system would have to admit to having been misled but in the circumstances that need not have looked too bad. More cynically I suppose he and others still owed too much to the power companies to lay their cards on the table. But in retrospect what could have happened to Davis that would have been worse than what did? Don't try to convince me the Republicans have more integrity. They may be more frank about what they are for but what they are for is selfish and inhumane. (If anyone resents that, let them show what selfless and visionary programs they have supported that have benefitted anyone but the richest and most privileged. Republicans get credit for being decent when they don't kill initatives or long-established programs that literally keep people alive, it is like giving tigers awards for not eating everyone in the village, just a few.) If Arnold is more than that it is because he is a bad Republican and maybe a better human being. But he did go to Germany and tell the wounded troops "You are the Terminator now!" How can Arnold and his supporters keep forgetting the Terminator was supposed to be a corporate-created, vicious killing machine created with a mission to utterly doom all of humanity? We will see whether there is flesh or ruthless machinery under that smiling tanned exterior. Posted by: Mark at June 25, 2004 03:49 PM Indian casinos havecoinless machines which eleminates a lot of jobs. What happens to the profits??? Posted by: Jay Sands at June 30, 2004 02:18 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|