[GPSCC-chat] Apple Protest

Thu Sep 25 07:05:02 PDT 2014

I wasn't soliciting support.  I was reporting the facts.  

SEIU did the Democrats an enormous favor to the Democrats by taking the blame for the third consecutive 
torpedoing of the California DISCLOSE Act so the Democrats didn't have to sabotage it themselves as they 
did in the previous two incarnations of the bill.   

How exactly SEIU had the power to foreclose the issue has never been to my knowledge explained.  Do we
have any actual evidence that SEIU opposition was the controlling factor, or is this simply a cover story? 
The DISCLOSE Act was popular among SEIU rank and file, and local leaders, and I suspect that any order 
from SEIU leadership about opposition to the bill would have been very costly internally.   

Perhaps SEIU's legal counsel advised them that he/she could not advocate that they support any legislation
that would limit their power to engage in anonymous political ad campaigns.  Of course he or she couldn't.
His or her duty is to the narrow interests of the client (and to her own interests in serving those narrow 
interests unswervingly), not to the greater public good.  The obligation of SEIU leadership is to recognize 
that the opinion of their highly-paid and highly-self-interested legal technician should be regarded as merely 
advisory.

Perhaps SEIU got some deal from the Democrats for this favor, or from the CA Chamber of Commerce.  Maybe
payoffs to individuals were involved.  Maybe the story that SEIU torpedoed the bill is a myth offered by  
Democrats who lacked the courage to overtly oppose the bill this time.

I can only speculate.  Politics is complicated.   If a stressed-out friend lets me down now and then, that  may 
alter the friendship but it doesn't have to destroy it. 

Brian 

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:39:56 -0700
From: spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com
To: snug.bug at hotmail.com; rainbeaufriend at riseup.net; wrolley at charter.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Apple Protest

          Are you aware that that SEIU
      sabotaged SB 52, the California Disclose Act, which would have
      required political ads to prominently identify the primary funders
      (e.g., David Koch vs. Citizens for Improving Democracy)? 
      According to salon.com, in opposing SB 52 the SEIU stated, “There
      is no reason to make any additional changes".  "Other unions
      followed SEIU’s lead. In an example of the need for transparency,
      it’s hard to find formal opposition to the DISCLOSE Act on labor
      websites. However, Salon has obtained opposition letters from CTA,
      the California School Employees Association and the state Labor
      Federation, a coalition of over 1,200 AFL-CIO and Change to Win
      union affiliates. CTA even argued SB 52 would violate the
      Constitution’s free speech clause, a nod to the Citizens United
      ruling, even though the Supreme Court in that case affirmed
      disclosure as a viable method to police campaign spending."
(www.salon.com/2014/08/27/principles_be_damned_how_campaign_finance_reform_just_got_crushed_in_a_liberal_state)

            Can someone explain to me why we should support an
      organization that opposes democracy by supporting the right of
      unions and big money to engage in deceitful political
      advertizing?  

            We need a strong, intelligent labor movement.  However, I
      for one will not support any individual or organization like SEIU
      that seem committed to deceit.  

            Organized labor in the US has been losing ground for 40
      years.  I'd like an honest discussion of why people think that has
      happened and what can be done to reverse that trend.  These same
      40 years have seen increased consolidation of ownership of the
      commercial media with the virtual elimination of investigative
      journalism from the nation's airways, where most people get their
      news and world view.  Any media organization that sells
      advertising sells behavior change in their audience to
      advertisers.  Increased consolidation in ownership means reduced
      competition for audience -- and increased leverage for advertisers
      in shaping the editorial content.  Labor does not play in that
      arena.  (This helps explain Brian's observation that the SEIU
      Apple protest got zero coverage in the media.)  

            Also, do labor unions contribute to all credible candidates
      or only those (usually Democrats) who support their political
      agenda?  Big money contributes to all credible candidates, and
      they win no matter which candidate wins.  If labor doesn't do
      that, they lose when their candidates lose.  

            I'd like to see organized labor refocus their current
      political campaign budget to investigative journalism and not
      spend a penny on political campaigns.  They could increase the
      impact of their investigative journalism by sponsoring debates
      between leading figures on issues of the day organized by their
      own investigative journalists and disseminated over their own
      YouTube and similar channels.  Unions could then encourage their
      own members to support candidates and issues -- sometimes with
      different union member supporting different candidates in the same
      race.  This could then give them "access" no matter who wins.  If
      they did this, I believe they would change the political
      environment in the US today so much it would more than offset what
      they would lose by stopping their purchases of deceitful
      advertising.  

            However, I have not researched this enough to be confident
      of everything said above.  I would appreciate further comments on
      this.  

            Best Wishes, 

            Spencer 

      On 9/24/2014 5:06 PM, Brian wrote:

      There was a SEIU protest outside Apple's flagship store in Palo Alto last week that went completely blacked out
by the media.  

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2014/09/22/street-level---the-unreported-news--seiu-shuts-down-university-avenue#comment_form

Of course it would have been nice if SEIU could have provided some photos and/or videos to go with the story of 
the blackout.

SEIU wants to organize the janitors and the security guards at Apple.  Currently those functions are served by 
non-union employees of outside contractors--and working conditions are poor.  

From: rainbeaufriend at riseup.net
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:09:26 -0700
To: wrolley at charter.net; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Apple Protest

Yep that was us, and I got the audio from KGO and intend to pay it when I get the chance. My blog post was republished (slightly edited) at http://www.popularresistance.org/apple-could-lead-if-it-had-an-iconscience/

Greenvolution is NOW!

Drew

On September 9, 2014 10:15:42 AM PDT, Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net> wrote:

    Listened to morning news on KTVU (Channel 2) today and their story
    re: Apple Announcement included a segment on a "planned protest"
    organized by the De Anza Greens and joined by ......

    Not sure who got the word out, but good work.

    KGO story had no such reference. 

    -- 

      "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you
      don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth"
      - Roberto Clemente

sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

      _______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

    -- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20140925/131355fc/attachment.html>