Home › Blogs › Warner Todd Huston's blog ›

Obama Appoints Collectivist to Chair NLRB

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:41

Promoted and bumped. We need to be watching these agencies closely, and not just cabinet level appointments. -Patrick

The National Labor Relations Board (nlrb.gov) is a federal agency created to monitor and administer federal laws that govern the relationship between labor unions and business owners and corporations and to this board, Barack Obama has appointed as its chair a woman that does not seem to believe much in individual freedom but seems more interested in collectivism. To you and me that might be considered a communist ideal, but even if she doesn't take it that far it is certainly an adversarial idea to individual freedom and the rights of business.

Last week, Obama named to the NLRB Wilma Liebman, a Philadelphian that has served on the legal staff of two labor unions: the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1980-1989) and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen (1990-1993).

As the NRW's freedom@work blog points out, Liebman has previously been known to make some rather startling statements.

[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could have troubling political and social consequences. Workers may view the employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What institution will speak for working people--indeed for the middle class--as effectively?

It is glaringly obvious that Liebman does not think the individual worker is smart enough to be able to deal with his employers. And, worse, it seems that Liebman has no intention of allowing the worker to even have the chance to experience that freedom of individual choice but is rather more interested in supplanting such messy freedoms with total collectivism.

This seems to point to an NLRB chair that will advocate for the side of labor no matter what else is going on, doesn't it? How can a person that is so blatantly biased in favor of big labor be expected to run an unbiased watchdog agency that is supposed to fairly deal with both sides?

Will Liebman be able to set aside her past activism and close associations with big labor to administer the federal agency to which she has been assigned?

I don't see how she could, myself.

 

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Well, notify me when she suggests some illegal activity

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 13:29.

like bush's FDIC chair did.

OH, wait, this one's actually qualfied.

Yinz wouldn't be complainin' if Obama be appointin' someone from the business side. Yinz just, whaddayacallit, biased.

Linked to your post

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 13:41.

Obama named Wilma Liebman to the National Labor Relations Board

 

a little bit of that old-time socialism

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 13:57.

Wow, that is like hard-core 1930's-style socialism speaking there.  "The random fortunes of capitalism"?  This is like Gephardt's "life's lottery" quote.  My God, do these people really think that rich people became rich by money falling from the sky into their laps???  Yeah so much for "governing from the center".

statistically speaking, under the last 30 years

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:01.

more people have become rich by money falling from the sky into their laps (inheritance) than from entrepreneurship, vis a vis the prior thirty years. Social mobility is receding into our Romantical rearview mirror.

citation please?

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:24.

n/t

wsj do ya?

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:41.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB111595026421432611.html

If you need technical, i can provide. I find the link between poverty, healthcare, and adult performance interesting, myself. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/522656?seq=7 ::subscription maybe required) 

utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand: (why even misanthropes can support communities. i thought of you! ;-) ) http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133%282002%29112%3A483%3CF437%3AAEA...

 

better citation for my point (wsj is as usual softpedaling)

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:43.

http://www.economist.com/World/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=35...

more stuff here:

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:44.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/002002.shtml

First you haven't provided

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:00.

First you haven't provided any real sources that are free.  Sadly I don't have subscriptions to anything you provided that would constitute any primary source.  The Nathan Newman thing is just a collection of quotes.

Second it doesn't prove your assertion that people primarily get rich nowadays via inheritance.

I'm sorry. my ISP makes it difficult for me to determine which

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:57.

are free. Would you mind looking at a library? Not everything can be cited from free articles, particularly when you won't accept quotations. Might I recommend contacting the authors? They might be able to send you a pdf...

If 75% of someone's wealth (on average) is inherited, then by gum, the wealthy get there by inheritance. Does this make sense?

Gates: upper middle class, granpa a bank president.

Buffet: pa a stockbroker

Ellison: lower middle class

Jim Walton: inherited from father

Robson Walton: inherited from father

Alice Walton: inherited from father

Chrisy Walton: inherited from father.

Bloomberg: unclear from skimming wiki. skipping.

Charles Koch: inherited company from father

David Koch: inherited from father

There. top ten richest men in America, very few of which have made their own wealth. most of it has been made by hedge funds trading for them. And I don't see one of them even coming from the lower 40% of America.

Re-analysis

Submitted by stl on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 01:37.

Can we please clean this up a little?  You really haven't done a good analysis.

Bloomberg:

But when he was growing up in Medford, Mass., in the 1950s, Bloomberg couldn’t even afford a trip to Boy Scout camp. The only way the Jewish Scout got there was by selling Christmas wreaths to his neighbors and winning annual trips to camp by being his troop’s top salesman

The Waltons: Four of the ten you consider inherited and you include in your "evidence".  Please, this is silly.  Let's turn to Sam Walton.  Father a banker in Oklahoma. 

Both the Waltons and the Kochs this is second generation stuff...one generation away from the original creative/business genius that made the money.

So what do we have left: Gates, Buffett, Elison, Bloomberg.  Two came from modest circumstances. 

Now, please go look at the Wikipedia's list of 100 richest people.  Question: do you see any patterns? 

Frankly, I'm not real interested in the super-rich.  These are geniuses at money and business (and no, I'm not jealous). 

But I'll leave you with this quote from Wikipedia:

Using the ratio of an individual’s current income to that of their parent’s, there is no academic consensus whether the United States has less or more relative mobility than other industrialized nations

 

 

roger. you got a metaanalysis for that?(numbers trump wiki)

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 09:40.

and thanks muchly for the update on Bloomberg -- I was very low on time.

Yes, four of the Waltons inherited their wealth. I'll stand by that claim -- because it's true! Sam Walton, from what I know of him, would be horrified by the turn his company has taken (one of my relatives bought something from him all personal like).

Modest is not my point, my point is that we aren't seeing the lower class rising to this height.

And you're right, I hate using the "super super rich" -- it's a fallacy to think that the top ten would be at all like the top 5%. But hell, the middle class starts at $250,000 nowadays, so that's a gigantic fuck you to the rest of the states that ain't California nor New York. You is all poor, basically.

Huh?

Submitted by stl on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 15:58.

I think you brought the whole economic mobility issue up.  So first, please give us your operational definition of that, and second please cite the meta-analysis if you have one.

Also, did you read Bernanke?  I know it is less fun that throwing around big words, but if you are interested in the subject, it's rather interesting.

have it bookmarked, will read hwen i get a chance.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 16:15.

look for a response on this thread when I finish reading.

It seems apparent from my skimming that our society is indeed becoming more pyrimidal, and less-diamondlike. I consider this dangerous for our continued economic wellbeing, as a country.

(nb. what i cited certainly ain't no metaanalysis. i'll be glad to withdraw my unfounded "i rememberthisfromkos" statements, if we can keep up the discussion on other fronts -- I don't want my mis/mal-statements to destroy the discussion entirely)

btw

Submitted by stl on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 02:01.

 

For those interested in a serious discussion of these issues check out Bernanke.   This is free, because I too don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer that is connected to a nice friendly "ISP" that has loads of journal subscriptons.  Although, not a bad day job if you can get it.

www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070206a.htm

John McCain, John Kerry, George W Bush

Submitted by Mead50 on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:07.

It appears it comes from inheritance or "marrying well" with your second wife.

we like teresa heinz in da burgh.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 09:42.

she ain't too bad for a rich heiress.

[though personally, I like grannydoc a lot more]

Common interests

Submitted by lgm on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 08:33.

Your logic is flawed (Love Mr. Spock!).  It's not un-democratic to join a union.  Our experience in the Bush years seems to vindicate:

And without a strong independent trade union movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What institution will speak for working people--indeed for the middle class--as effectively?

There is nothing in the quote that justifies this reaction:

It is glaringly obvious that Liebman does not think the individual worker is smart enough to be able to deal with his employers.

Indeed, Liebman says exactly how smart workers would deal with employers, form a union.

I've got to wonder about that myself

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 17:11.

The whole issue of "collectivism" fails to differentiate between the public and private spheres.

I had heard about how great it was that the people in Iowa were able to pull together and sangbag the river by themselves; in contrast with the people of New Orleans that wanted some assistance from the government, and instead got one heckuva job.

So, I suppose you can tell all the Republicans in Iowa, as they are the ones running down the street with a sandbag, yelling, "Mine! Mine! Mine!" and spouting something about collectivism.

Why take pity on the people of New Orleans, when these people enjoyed such great freedoms without the intervention of the government?  New Orleans the week after Katrina is the vision of the ideal world for some.

 

yahn. when the us gov't plan to evacuate New Orleans

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 17:19.

was "DON"T" you want to compare it to Iowa? obakasama, your eyes need checked.

Also, your post is incredibly offensive to those who lost family members or close friends to the disaster.

That warms my heart

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 17:33.

n/t 

may it burn in the fires of hell

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 17:36.

after I'm done slicing it from your body.

okay, i'm kidding. but being that dismissive is upsetting me.

oh, for the good old days

Submitted by quiet on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 10:57.

Back in the 1800s, with unfettered capitalism, and workers individually worked with their employers for an 8-hour workday, weekends, benefits, safe working environments--

What's that, you say? That was brought about by unions? That can't be right.

Unions are a countervailing force: without workplace regulation and the threat of unions, companies are much more reluctant to provide a union-like environment for employees, because it's superficially cost-effective to treat your employees as poorly as you can get away with.

Y'all are cute, though. Keep up with that fight against socialism: 1935 was only 75 years ago. It might come back!

This is so tedious

Submitted by stl on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 16:20.

The "progressives" always use arguments from 100 years ago.  There is 1830 lurking aournd every corner.  There a finger about to be cut off in a sausage macnine if it were no massive government..  

Yes, we all gotta love those countries that have a strong union voice:  From

Apr 13, 2006 Workers World:

Mass protests on the streets get results!

Weeks of demonstrations by millions of youth, trade unions and their supporters have forced the French government to back down from a measure that would impose “at will” hiring and firing practices on young people under the age of 26 

 

did you hear about the worldwide strike?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 16:22.

imho a better example than the french thing.

For many progressives, me included, the 1800's are just around the corner. Corporations this very second are engaging in white slavery. Do I really need to say more on the subject? Very well, there are also corporations who are right now attempting to strip people of their human dignity in order to be able to employ them at lower rates. Because it is in the corporation's best interest to make people more desperate, so that they will work for less pay.

I like it

Submitted by stl on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 01:52.

 

White slavery?  Thank you, that actually made me laugh!!!  Obviously you must be a secret conservative the loves to parody progressives just for the fun of it.

And it is fun.  Perhaps you are providing conservatives an opportunity to sharpen their thinking along the way ... (but you gotta admit, this was a little over the top).

At any rate...thanks.

considering that some of these corporations

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 10:21.

service our servicemen, I think it is not a laughing matter. (seriously, do you have any fucking idea what white slavery is???)

Nah, I'm a libertarian liberal. I post on kos regularly, along with myDD and streetprophets (currently having a fascinating discussion on the morality of porn)