This is one of the strangest stories of the week or month or year. President Obama spoke in Pittsburgh about the importance of strengthening unions.
Unions are under siege and have been for several years, but I can’t remember when the President stepped up to defend them.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, was this story published by the Onion ? Or is it just one more example of our president eloquently defending the very things he is systemically eviscerating ?
Patrickwalsh, the President is also opposed to teaching to the test, but Race to the Top encourages it.
Seems to me that our President speaks with a forked tongue…..
Diane, you know as well as I do that there is nothing strange about Obama now defending unions.
He is a politician.
He feels the direction of the wind and responds with calculation and planning accordingly to promote and sustain himself.
He is a MASTER as doing this.
How do you think he got to be president?
Your comment, which implies a question, also implies a rhetorical answer.
Are you saying that Obama was right to mislead the voters for election purposes? I believe that if he lead as he promised during his 2008 campaign he would’ve won reelection by a landslide and would not have support numbers around 41% today. I infer that you think it’s okay to ignore the policies the voters elected him for.
When Obama claimed awhile back that he would “put on comfortable shoes” and join the picket line in Chicago of there were a strike, Jon Pelto actually mailed him a pair. I’m sure they are still in the box.
Yes, here’s the proof, but now he only wears fancy DC shoes and you don’t go too far with those.
Obviously the Democrats are looking for some union money right now. They are probably afraid that all the harm Obama has done to unions and union workers will damage their ability to get that money, so they are having Obama pay lip service to the unions again. Let’s see if it works. I hope it doesn’t. Unions need to start rejecting anti-worker politicians, regardless of the party they belong to.
Don’t worry! Randi will cough up the cash.
The 100,000 people who marched in Wisconsin in 2011 when the teachers’ union was being destroyed were also waiting for him.
No mention of public sector workers or teachers in particular. Seems to me this is a ” little dab will do it,” effort to bolster the prospects of votes and tap the get out the vote power of some unions.
Obama’s union busting programs speak louder than this latest example of Obamian sophistry. I love the part about corporations “have to have a bottom line.” Actually, all corporations have one, and that’s got nothing to do with whether they also have unions. As usual, Obama bobs and weaves with the slowing deftness of a boxer who’s taken one too many punches. One day he forces striking Philadelphia transit workers back to work with a Harvard-inspired federal order, and the next day he’s out in Pittsburgh talking about how much he loves unions. If he cared about unions and working people, he could prove it. A start: Fire Arne Duncan and hire someone with teaching experience and union credibility for the job Obama put Duncan in six years ago (yes, by December when we celebrate the anniversary of the Duncan announcement here in Chicago, Arne will have been the longest serving union-busting social Darwinisn Secretary of Education in the history of the United States)…
Just adding a link to the story, just in case people haven’t heard about the story Philadelphia transit workers. My twitter feed was on fire with claims of union busting and I wholeheartedly agree.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/obama-philadelphia-rail-strike/10537385/
Also, there was a news piece that featured one of the most Onionesque tweet I have ever read, something along the lines of having their iced coffee melted while waiting for alternative transportation and being equally upset about it. It was almost too piggish to be real.
Amen, George Schmidt. Right on.
Did he speak in front of Walmart?
Well, this may explain it:
“He said globalization, technology and the declining costs of transportation gave them “less leverage” and led to fewer unionized private sector jobs.”
It’s like the phases of the moon or tides; it had nothing whatever to do with any action or inaction by lawmakers or powerful people in the private sector. Like income inequality and stagnant wages, which are apparently the fault of teachers who belong to labor unions, the most powerful people had nothing whatever to do with the decline of labor unions.
The President is advising working people to strengthen labor unions, despite a concerted state, federal and private sector effort to abolish labor unions and his administration’s complete abandonment of labor unions.
The Democratic Party is offering advice to working people this election cycle. That’s it. They are in an advisory role only. Strengthen labor unions, get an education, gain new skill sets, work harder- politicians and CEO’s are issuing a to-do list for working people.
“The Democratic Party is offering advice to working people this election cycle. That’s it. They are in an advisory role only.”
I think you hit the nail on the head. Everybody vote green, the two party system doesn’t work anymore.
Well, of course the Obomber said that. Just because he spouted it out doesn’t mean anything because he will do nothing to help “strengthen” unions. As a matter of fact when it comes to the teachers professional organizations and the teachers unions he has his B-Ball buddy (in more ways than one) the Dunkster promulgating policies that help to destroy the associations and unions.
Making a distinction between private sector labor unions and public sector unions is important, as the President does here.
Chris Christie does the same thing, and so does John Kasich. In states where unions still have some power, politicians can divide those two groups and still get substantial private sector union support.
You’d want to parse the language real close.
It’s nonsense; as we’ve seen in state after state, the moment they destroy public sector unions they go after private sector unions, but it’s useful to them for the next few cycles.
They don’t even enforce existing law or worker protections at this point. They issue stern letters and levy fines and ask employers nicely to please establish and follow “best practices”.
I don’t know when it happened, but at some point lawmakers and regulators became deeply confused about their role. They decided they were in an advisory position only. They advise industry, they advise workers, they’re full of good advice.
I think they should go back to basics: “what, exactly, is my job description?”
Here’s a shocker: Duncan oversold the Starbucks program he endorsed and promoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2014/06/19/b154fce0-f7e9-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?utm_content=bufferc05cc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I’m glad they announced it.
I never would have known “state” universities had for-profit online divisions. That was news to me. When do we get our first for-profit “state” university? That’s an exciting new sector!
Future historians are going to have such a field day filtering through all the chicanery that has come out of the mouth of this poor excuse for a first minority president.
Obama is just paying lip service to unions, there is no substance behind his rhetoric, it’s just words, a fake façade. Democrats in general have not done much for unions; anti-union Cuomo and Emanuel come to mind and the governor of CT. What ever happened to EFCA? Zip, nothing, no real support or effort from the Democrats. Eisenhower, a Republican, was much more pro union than the current crop of Democrats. As they say, actions speak louder than words. I wonder if the anti-union troll, Harlan Underhill, will make his appearance and equate unions with commies, Marxists, leftists, reds, thugs, lazy thugs, etc., ad nauseam?
This is nothing more than Democrats and Republicans getting their political ducks in a row during an election year. In this case, it’s a Democrat president stumping for unions which have long been a cause for the Dems. As we’re seeing in Louisiana, Republicans are having a tough time. On the one hand, John White is pro-CCSS (and, thus, pro-big business). On the other hand, Bobby Jindal is anti-CC because they’re supposed to oppose anything the big, bad government implements. Those of us who frequent this forum know better.
This is not how his visit was reported here in Pittsburgh. And for good reason. For even as he appeared here, his secretary of education was touting and pushing the Vergara decision in California which was giving momentum in our state (and everywhere) to those working to destroy the foundations of unions in public education.
The entire reform agenda has always been about the destruction of the rights of workers to collectively bargain a contract & Democrats are complicit in this effort. Make no mistake, while they work to weaken collective bargaining rights for teachers, they support banksters & CEO’s across the country who would never work without bargaining a lucrative contract for themselves.
Why should we believe anything this man has to say?
To whatever extent Obama supports unions at all (which is minimal), he’s always drawn a distinction with public sector unions. He buys the going line that public sector unions aren’t fair because there aren’t two sides of the negotiation – the government doesn’t have the same bottom-line motivation to negotiate hard against the union, so they end up colluding with the union. NOTE: this is the right-wing/Obama talking point, NOT my personal opinion.
It’s pure nonsense. The moment states get rid of public sector unions they go after private sector unions.
While Obama has been President, this has happened in the following states: Indiana and Michigan.
It would have happened in Ohio if Ohio hadn’t overturned the law abolishing public sector unions by bypassing the legislature and governor and taking it to a referendum. Ohio would now be a Right To Work state, too.
The Obama Administration are aware of this, yet they publicly endorsed a trial court decision that weakens worker protections.
I can’t think of a single thing this administration has done to advance workers’ rights, up to and including enforcing existing law. They’re not even enforcing the laws we have, and not enforcing the laws we have means people need labor unions MORE than they did before, not less. Non-union workers don’t have any real state and federal protections, because they aren’t enforced. An advocate outside government is the only shot they have.
My hope is private sector workers realize that the “protections” they have under state and federal law are wholly illusory, because nothing is enforced. They have never needed an extra-governmental organization more.
Obama has only paid lip service. In fact his attempt to get a new trade deal with Asian countries under “fast track” approval does just the opposite.
Obama is a mendacious, duplicitous empty suit.
If I am ever in a public place where he appears, I will give him the respect he merits:
I will turn my back to him.
He deserves no more.
“Duplicitor”-in-Chief in my oft stated view.
Empty suit? I prefer sock-puppet. If there is anything resembling a election cycle going on, we will hear the “liberal” Obama support this and that but his actions are all about the money. And I voted for the guy. Never again.
Well, I for one, am glad to hear it.
I presume this means that Secretary Duncan will be fired immediately for his public stance applauding weakening teachers’ union protections.
Wait, what?
Reblogged this on Daniel Katz, Ph.D. and commented:
President Obama says unions must be strengthened. Meanwhile Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has openly praised the Vergara decision…which deprives California’s unionized teachers of due process rights.
Empty lip service on a Friday makes me grumpy.
Again, play close attention to private vs. public sector unions. Obama has never supported public sector unions, especially not teachers unions.
Which makes supporting unions at all problematic for him — public sector is a huge unionized labor force which is why it is under such unrelenting attack.
The answer is “midterm elections”, and the democrats are desperate to hold on to at least one house of Congress. Therefore, the Democratic Party hires analysts to come up with talking points to influence voters. It doesn’t matter if the president believes what he says. He has to say it to motivate union members to vote.
Another instance of Obama brand union busting: Honeywell v. Uranium workers and IAM.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13297/censored_by_honeywell_ceo_a_reporters_courageous_confrontation
http://inthesetimes.com/article/12322/whats_the_matter_with_kansas_city
Obama’s record on unions is abysmal. He’s no better than Reagan in my mind. Maybe even worse, just to account for the things we don’t know about yet.
Does PARCC have to release anything to the public on the testing they did on tens of millions of kids?
The testing went great because the CEO says it went great?
I know they’re a non-profit, and I don’t care about their status under the federal tax code, so that’s not an answer to the question.
What obligations and duties does this private entity have to the public as far as transparency? How are we supposed to tell what is hype and marketing and what is fact about how this national test went?
http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/06/19/parcc-leaders-bullish-on-field-test-results-short-on-details/#.U6RXB41dVH2
Diane wrote “Unions are under siege and have been for several years, but I can’t remember when the President stepped up to defend them.”
On 6/17/14, Justin Sink wrote in The Hill:
The president acknowledged that “unions have been back on their heels over the last several decades.” He said globalization, technology and the declining costs of transportation gave them “less leverage” and led to fewer unionized private sector jobs.
Obama said union laborers paid for their increased wages and benefits with “skills, reliability, [and] productivity.”
But he also encouraged labor “to be flexible” and “recognize that if you’re working for a company, that that company has to have a bottom line.”
“They’re competing against nonunion labor as well,” Obama said (Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/209648-obama-us-must-strengthen-unions)
Great words, no matter how well written and eloquently delivered, are no substitute for leadership. We’ve had more than enough words. Now is the time for corrective action.
A good beginning would be for the president to request Education Secretary Arne Duncan to have the USDOE invite experienced educators and education historians to meet to form action plans to counteract wrong decisions and the damage already incurred by CCSS, VAM, and the over-commercialization of K-12 education. See “School Wars and Scandals: A Crisis of Leadership” at https://collegeathleticsclips.com/news/schoolwarsandscandalsacrisisofleadership.html
Frank G. Splitt
Here’s some more advice from the Democrats on working:
FACT: Every year, thousands of workers become sick from exposure to heat. Remember #WaterRestShade –>
The Labor Department seems to believe they are the personnel department in a large corporation. I’m not clear on when they misplaced their job descriptions in DC and went fro “regulators and advocates” to “people who lecture workers on how they can produce more for less”.
Is there an employee manual for government someone can put their hands on?
He did not mean teachers associations because he has made it very clear that teachers should not have any rights. What a joke! Election time and the Demd now see that many Senate races will be very boles and teachers may vote for someone other than a Dem. or stay home and not vote. I warned Dean and Clinton this would happen at least four years ago. I wonder who reads their emails! Because everything I said they needed to do, they did the opposite.aybe they have staff who are Not Dems. I told th they would lose the Senate and now they will. I see no other outcome. They have destroyed both major teacher unions and continue to complete the job in places like Connecticut and New York and California is next. It is too bad they did not have this same team in place dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan. I am certain Arne D. with the support from the Kochs, Walton’s, Gates, and other deformy education people would have had a total victory. I guess it was not as high a priority as destroying our public schools! Hopefully, the next President will put the suffering animal to rest and we can see how well their Theory of Distuptive Innovation works for Americans who cannot afford expensive Private Schools. I hope I live long enough to see the final product. I picture something like North Korea.
He can’t make any promise as ever as other presidents didn’t in the past– and ditto to those who will run for the 2016 election and the afterward. He’s surrounded by too many Washington pundits and gives them free reign to take care of business–while he himself remains within an echo-chamber of the White House. Too bad he’s been exemplifying himself as a product of institutionalist (like W and Republicans/Democrats in the Congress) until today–rather than fixing its entire system creating political machine. And he hardly ever would stop that.
Re: Obama. Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. President Obama has consistently not supported the people who got him elected. Talk is cheap. (Sorry for the cliches, but sometimes they say it best, or most easily)
I am sure this comment will not be well received. I could care less if unions are under siege. I am more concerned with ALL Americans “under siege” by Federal and state govt. and town councils who squeeze the American people of the wealth, restrict their freedoms and regulate their lives.
Union failure is due to union leadership, who refuse to accept the fact their are gone the way of the buggy whip, with the creation of Federal agencies and legislation to support workers.
It is the union leadership that is no longer needed, but like old soldiers, rather than die, they should fade away.
I guess child labor, 70 hour work weeks, dangerous working conditions, loss of pay for illness, no overtime pay etc are okay with you. It is the 1% who are squeezing the middle and lower class. They control government and fight any legislation to improve the lives of the vast majority of workers. In case you are unaware it is unions that fought for the things I mentioned above.
I am with you Michael. We cannot forget what unions fought for; there is no guarantee that those rights won’t be taken away especially if there is no longer a unified voice speaking for labor.
I agree with both ajbruno and Mike Brocoum.
In both their contentions, why not therefore reinvent our lousy, corrupt, lily-livered unions?
And speaking of Obama’s stance on unions, let’s please not forget his gruesome, decrepit fairy godmother Penny Pritzker of the Hyatt Hotels Empire, and how she turned on the heat lamps during one summer when her unionized members were protesting outside her hotels for a living wage.
Ms. Pritizker et al had this done to heat up what was already an unbearable outdoor climate in order to motivate her mal-paid employees to disband and move to cooler sections away from the hotel. In this way, their visibility would be greatly compromised.
The fairy godmother and her fairy godson are grotesque villains to unions.
Obama’s speech in Pittsburgh is snake oil.
Obama’s slithering, venom and forked tongue are addicting and make you feel good like a sugar rush. It’s that same venom, once in your bloodstream, that moves about thoroughly to destroy your organs.
Obama and his cabana boy Arne Duncan are among the most virulent anti-union politicians right up there with Eli Broad and Randi Weingarten . . . .
i’ve just appended this reference to site in three different places now.
https://www.au.org
americans united: separation of church and state
They describe how voucher-only or charter-only is being used as an ideology to destroy teacher unions or for that matter labor unions.
Let’s act like grown-ups. Obama has not supported teachers and their unions with the sort of enthusiasm most of us prefer to see. However, he has made many pro-union statements publicly, he has met with union leaders and given them some encouragement, and he has promoted and signed pro-worker legislation. He is not Arne Duncan and he hasn’t been able to cut through the BS to see the true motives of some of the wealthy people pushing privatization and charters. Duncan may not be the brightest bulb around and he too has been snookered by the sheep in wolf’s clothing who appear to be interested only in improving educational opportunities, but he is hardly the great Satan that some are making him out to be. No one helps this cause by demonizing people and indulging in extreme rhetoric. The problems in this field have been severe and chronic for many decades and until some of the people sounding off here provide some truly effective long-term solutions, they should cool it or put a cork in it. Teachers deserve to have collective bargaining and unions are essential, but acting stupid and taking the bait from the people who are anti-union only hurts everyone.
Educators have been sounding off for YEARS, DECADES about truly effective long-term solutions…but none of it is being addressed with these currecnt reforms (ala NCLB and RTTT)….smaller class size especially in high poverty schools….before and after school activities that are fully staffed and funded….wrap around health services at and through the school system….strengthening neighborhood schools and their communities….and there is more…but no one with the ear of power is listening…
Barry Elliott,
President Obama appointed Arne Duncan. Duncan does what the President wants. He does not have his own education policy.
May I remind you that when Governor Scott Walker fought the public sector unions in Wisconsin, President Obama never showed up. In fact, at the height of the struggle over collective bargaining, the President and Duncan went to Miami to meet Jeb Bush and celebrate the “turnaround” of Miami Central High School. Three months later, the Florida state education department warned Miami Central HS that it was in danger of closure due to poor performance.
Public sector unions in Wisconsin lost, with no help from the President.
Your explanation to Barry is yet another reason to love Diane Ravitch. . . . LOVE, LOVE, LOVE.
Tell ‘im, Diane. Obama is anything but pro-union.