To me there are a number of things that I would like to see in our next Party Chair. A commitment to grassroots politics, an ability to fundraise, and a continued commitment to competing in all 100 counties are all essentials for most people. But what is even more core, and is in fact so essential that it never seems to be mentioned is Democratic values.
There have been and will always be arguments over what it means to be a Democrat, and what sort of values our party has. But at its very core, the Democratic Party is about putting people first. It is about standing up for the voiceless at all times. And right now I am not convinced that David Young will do that. Right now David Young seems to be the consensus pick. He has the support of the Governor and Jerry Meek and a long list of very important and influential people, many of whom I have a great amount of respect for. But there are some very serious problems. In 2004, at a County Commission meeting Young said the following:
Keever commented: "Certainly we would like to keep businesses here. But if we err, I would hope we would err on the side of those who are most needy." Young shot back, "I would hope we would err on the side of business."
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2004/0728county.php Those are certainly not words that I want to see come out of any Democrat, let alone a Democrat running for Party Chair. But then just a few weeks after the May primary, he very forcefully said that there was no benefit to reversing the law on collective bargaining in this state. http://www.ncacc.org/perspective/young/young09.html At the base of his argument is that collective bargaining in the private sector is a useful counterbalance to a company’s push for profits (and other things). In his opinion, because county government jobs are more stable than private company jobs there is no need for collective bargaining. Because apparently so long as the government keeps someone employed minor things like good pay and respect in the workplace don’t really matter. Ignoring the misguided assumption that collective bargaining is only about pay, the bigger problem here is the idea that governments have little to no responsibility to their employees. In Mr. Young’s opinion, because the state outlawed smoking at work there is no other concern that employees could possibly have, and certainly no concern that would justify granting employees a right to speak as a group if they so wished. In both these articles there is something deeply disturbing. I would call on Mr. Young to unequivocally repudiate his past statements that business should come before people and that government employees in North Carolina don’t deserve the right to collectively bargain. Further, I call on Mr. Young to support Collective Bargaining for state employees, and to promise that if elected Chair he will do everything in his power to make sure that our party and our state will always put people first.
Comments
Thanks for this, Blue
Don't hold your breath. The Democratic Party in North Carolina, for the most part, is the party of big business. Mr. Young appears to be right in the mainstream. I hope I'm wrong, but that exchange with Keever is pretty damning.
I admire and appreciate all the hard work progressive Democrats do, both here in North Carolina and throughout the country. But frankly, I am tired of being taken for granted. That's why I reregistered as unaffiliated, as Independent. Unless and until Democratic elected officials suffer consequences when they fail to represent progressive wing of the party, corporatists will continue to dominate the party and its leadership.
Why its so important
That is part of why I think this is so important. This isnt an elected official, who we expect to disagree on issues. I don't want even all Democrats to agree on everything. But he is seeking to represent a "district" made up entirely of Democratic volunteers and activists, and if he disagrees he should at a minimum pledge to represent their values.
Our party is the people's party, and I don't want our next chair to be even a little confused on that point.
"Keep the Faith"
Have you questioned him about it?
He has invited questions by e-mail. DavidYoungForStateChair@gmail.
If you do ask him about it, I'd be interested to see how he responds. I agree that it's important for him to represent Democrats and Democratic values, and tilting toward business is not the best way to do that. If we Democrats don't look out for the poor and powerless, who will?
Thanks
I just sent him an email, and will let you know what he says.
"Keep the Faith"
C-Dawg it is so nice to see you back
you have been missed!
Thank you!
It's nice to know I was missed! I love you guys, but I have to practice self-control not to spend ALL my time here!
Even Kos agrees with me
Substitute "NC Democratic Party" for "Obama" and the message is the slmost same. The main difference is that instead of 10% of the time, we're probably talking 50% or more.
Why I am running and a reply to Blue South's concerns
Who are these people of which you speak?
I haven't met any normal North Carolinian that can name a good reason for not having collective bargaining for public employees. As for "a structured process to regularly meet and confer", well that and $2 will buy a state employee a cup of coffee.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Good point.
It's that Old North State tradition / myth acting up again. "North Carolina citizens" cuts a pretty wide swath. Maybe it doesn't include you and me, Robert!
Discussion on collective bargaining for public employees
Robert P., I know that this might very well get a negative response from you. You're in favor of public employees being unionized and I'm not. I have just a few arguments against that. I have read the best of the best on Google searches explaining why what I'm saying is not true and providing what they consider as legitimate arguments to it. Regardless, I believe that most folks believe as I do.
My first and biggest problem with public employees being unionized is that if they do have the ability to "strike", they could and (in my opinion) would hold the public trust we give them hostage to get their demands. Police personnel and fire protection personnel and essential services like water management and waste management and in some areas garbage collection etc. can be withheld under a strike clause to force their demands be met. That's not in the public interest. Now, I'm not against unions or collective bargaining in the private sector. I don't think it's appropriate in the public-jobs sector. Currently, public employees without union representation (for the most part...and don't cite some abscure example against this please) enjoy wages equilivant and in many instances above what similar jobs in the private sector receive. Public employees without unions, for the most part, receive better retirement benefits and better health care than equilivant employees in the private sector...or at the minimum, equilivant. Again...sure, there are exceptions...but we know those aren't commonplace. So, a need for union representation really isn't there in most cases in the public sector jobs. In addition, most "government jobs" are secure with very few examples of lay offs or reduced hours etc. And, these jobs are paid by taxpayers even the people that receive unemployment benefits and still have to pay "payroll" taxes...which is really something of a ludicrous nature, isn't it?
If there was a real need for public/government employees to be represented by unionization, I'd be supporting it. In my mind, that just isn't the case.
Like I said...I know there are arguments to how I feel.
Fire away.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
A few points
Unions have a much bigger purpose than simple pay. There are a lot of other workplace concerns that make a union necessary.
As for strikes, there are seperate laws governing collective bargaining and striking. In fact, the bill that was supported by the AFL-CIO during the 07-08 legislative session would have maintained the ban on strikes while making it legal for employees to engage in collective bargaining for public employees. And yes, I think that is a valid concern you have in that case, as does much of the coalition behind dropping the collective bargaining ban.
"Keep the Faith"
This put a TOTALLY different light on it...thanks
This is interesting. I learned something here and for that, I thank you. I am absolutely NOT against collective bargaining for public employees if the ability for them to hold the public hostage through a strike clause is not present.
Thanks for that. In my experience with unions, a strike clause is one of the most important part for the union with regard to representation. It's their power, so to speak. I wouldn't be against unionization/representation of public employees under this condition.
Again, Thanks.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
Man, Smitty.
I really respect that answer. I don't care what they say about you, you're okay.
Wait a minute.....
What do they say about me ???
HAHAHA...yeah, I know what you're saying.
Look, sometimes even old dogs can learn a thing or two.
The best thinking is independent thinking.
Thanks for posting this, David.
Glad to see your explanation. You seem to be a pragmatist, which is usually a good thing.
I look forward to the discussion that others will bring, though I'm personally going to watch from the sidelines. I don't have a dog in this hunt at all. But let me leave you with this thought: Anything you can do to make the North Carolina Democratic Party a stronger force for progressive values would be welcome. It's kind of despressing not having a party I'm willing to claim membership in.
A few things, David
Worker's compensation is not just a "punishment" for employers, it's a proven vehicle for improvements in workplace safety. The losses involved when a worker is not able to produce, yet is still compensated, forces the employer (and their carrier) to evaluate factors that led to the injury, and take steps to reduce the likelihood of future injuries of the same nature. In the absence of this economic "driver" of change, bringing about these improvements would require a much more complex and government-intrusive system of laws, regulations and fines, which would likely end up punishing businesses who operate very safely. Unlike some other static operating costs, worker's comp is one of those costs that a business can actually reduce through its behavior.
As far as collective bargaining for public employees, I think there's an undercurrent of fear that giving them a union would automatically produce a disruption in services here and there due to strikes. But striking is actually a rare occurrence if you look at union/management relations overall. Here's the thing: even if the "meeting with employees" thing actually did address the concerns of that individual, it's not a given that those concerns are shared by a majority of workers. Indeed, if you act on the concerns of the one, you may be adversely affecting the many. Now, you may say that the person hearing the complaint would use discretion to make sure that doesn't happen, but wouldn't it be easier for employees to collectively decide what they want before it's presented to management? This is the crux of the matter. The squeaky wheel may get the grease, but the wagon still might topple over because of all the potholes. That's...a stupid analogy, but I think you get my drift. Collective bargaining is not just about wielding power in numbers, it's also about prioritization and progress.
Well stated
Thats really well stated. Thanks.
"Keep the Faith"
Worker's Comp
Perhaps it is not direct "punishment, but it sure feels that way sometimes. Almost any business will inevitably get a claim on their insurance. The frustrating thing is that the insurers pretty much have to pay out on anything. They just can't/don't fight it. Fault also has pretty no much relevance in a claim. The worker could intentionally do something really stupid, but it doesn't matter- it happened at work.
I have an employee who was diagnosed with heel spurs. As their job requires them to stand up most of the day, the doctor said standing "may" have contributed to the condition. People without standing jobs get heel spurs too. Overweight people are more prone to them because there is more weight on the feet. This employee is perhaps 80 pounds overweight. Is their weight not also a potential contributing factor? We also provide excellent padding for workers to stand on, so we were "behaving" as well as possible to protect workers from their feet hurting from standing.
So what happened? The doctor's "may have contributed" led to the claim getting paid on our insurance, which affected our rating. We don't really know the cause of the heel spurs. We don't know the contribution the extra eighty pounds may have had on the condition. Standing is a normal human activity any way. Nobody got sucked into a machine or fell off a roof. A person stood at work and also got heel spurs. Worker's comp paid the claim. We pay more for insurance. We got "punished" for something probably not a workplace "injury" in the first place.
I like the idea of erring on the side of business/insurers to a certain degree. Certainly in the case from above, I would have liked more proof than "may have contributed" coupled with some reasonable accounting for employee culpability in the "accident."
Not a perfect system.
Unfortunately, the erring on the side of hte employee is probably based on the centuries of employers allowing workers to have their arms and legs chopped off without giving them a dime. I remember seeing a documentary about the chicken processing plants in NC that hire undocumented workers and then when they get fingers cut off in the machinery they fine them for missing work or fire them.
I think someone getting workers comp for being overweight and gettin heal spurs is ridiculous, while at the same time understanding how painful and empathizing with the worker's plight.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Do you provide health insurance to your employees?
I thought you had said earlier that you didn't. Perhaps if this employee had health insurance (I'm assuming she didn't), she wouldn't have been 80 pounds overweight, and the heel spurs might have been covered that way.
I know that health insurance is very expensive -- trust me; we're having to look for our own insurance. But I also know that FirstCarolinaCare has an excellent program for companies with low income workers.
Yes we have health insurance
and it is another staggering cost of doing business.
The employee would certainly have had the heel spurs covered under the health insurance but:
-They could have had deductibles and copays
-Worker's comp covers time missed from work due to the "injury."
Thus, because there was a tenuous possible connection to work, it was in the employee's best interest to try a worker's comp claim first. It paid off (for them) and I don't blame them.
Screwed up system, IMHO.
That is messed up, SPLib.
Workmen's comp is an important thing to have, but it really sounds like this situation was tenuous, at best.
And another thing
On average, we have to change carriers every two or three years because they keep pulling out of providing worker's comp insurance in NC. It is really fun when a worker is trying to deal with a claim covered by a company two insurers ago.
I had a couple of those myself,
but most of the claims I've come in contact with are legitimate. As a matter of fact, fraudulent worker's comp claims only represent something like 2% of claims made, but the push for stricter measures to combat a crisis (that didn't exist) has cost employees a lot more money than bad claims have cost employers and their insurers:
articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/07/news/mn-109
Response to David Young
I will be sending the following to David in a minute, but wanted to post it here. Thanks David for the prompt response. It is certainly heartening to see you respond quickly and publicly. However, your answer still leaves some questions. The NCDP platform says the following:
The platform further lists a number of issues which state the party's support for employers as a basic right. These statements are made without regard to a business' profit lines, because the party believes them to be essential. However, you said:
You followed this up by stating:
Now, maybe I am reading this wrong, but are you saying that collective bargaining is only important in making sure that employees have a fairer share of profits? I hope it isn't, because collective bargaining is about so much more than a pay raise during good times. It is about the very issues listed in the NCDP platform, such as a workplace that is free of discrimination, and ensures that every worker is treated with the respect they deserve.
And that is why I am so supportive of collective bargaining for our state employees. Because this is about much more than pay.
My question for you though, is that you have stated that as President of the County Commissioners you represented their views. However, you have also given us your personal view, and they are the same. So I can't imagine it would have been that difficult to support their views. But, the Democratic Party has taken a position that is the opposite of your own personal view. We do not need a party chair who follows the party platform because he has to. We need and deserve a party chair who will lead the party.
Simply stated, if elected Chair, will you take the lead in pushing for and gaining consensus support amongst elected officials for Collective Bargaining for State Employees?
"Keep the Faith"
I just don't see the difference.
In many rural counties, county government is the largest employer. If you eliminate the possiblity of collective bargaining for those employees, you take the majority of employees in that county out of the process. I don't think that's right. I don't believe that government is necessarly a "good" entity. Government employees should have the same protections as other workers.
I'm a registered Democrat in NC, and I believe that most Dems in NC agree with my position - not yours. Please reconsider.
Answer to Blue South
Open Dialogue Should Include Honest Dialogue
Senator Doug Berger
Thanks Senator
Thank you Senator for the context. I appreciate you taking part in the conversation.
I found the following quote from the NC Justice Center about SB 984
"Keep the Faith"
your stance on Verified Voting and Open Meetings?
Mr. Young, if you had your way in early 2006, the governor would have called for a special session to delay and therefore gut the Public Confidence in Elections Law. This is the law many of us gave up alot of sweat blood and tears for, and you would put it up to being gutted.
In Jan 2006, you were among 3 Buncombe Commissioners who were going to meet with the NC Association of County Commissioner's lobbyist via phone conference, without inviting the public. The discussion was with the NCACC about the voting machine issue, you and the NCACC wanted to see a special session to change the Public Confidence in Elections Law (to its detriment):
You wanted to open up our paper ballot/voting vendor standards law to the risk of gutting, because you wanted "more competition".
But the vendors had a chance to compete, and fell short because they didnt want to meet the strict requirements for vendors (and risk civil and criminal penalties). Three vendors were certified by the NC State Board of Elections, but 2 chose not to sign that affadavit or work to meet the standards.
As someone who went to court to stop Diebold from weakening our laws so that it would be "easier" for them to "compete", your efforts against our Public Confidence in Elections Law are not taken lightly.
last thing Diebold would have to do (but didn't) before they bowed out of bidding on our business was this - have their CEO sign a sworn affadavit that they would follow the voting laws upon risk of civil and criminal penalty. On their way out the door, Diebold did offer to help re-write our election integrity laws to make it easier for them to bid.
Slight edits made to clarify r/e secret meetings.
An interesting and important discussion
Thank you Blue South for bringing up this important topic.
As a union organizer here in North Carolina, every day I see the benefits workers enjoy when they are able to join together to speak with a strong voice at the workplace. As stated here earlier and quite eloquently, collective bargaining is about so much more than just dollars and cents. It is about the basic worker right (I would contend HUMAN right) to free association granted to us by the highest laws of the land. Sure, state employees have the right to form an association to represent themselves, but without the ability to bargain on behalf of their membership, such organizations are left without the central source of power and responsibility that comes from union representation.
The right to free association, including collective bargaining is available to almost every other worker in the county. It is a travesty that our public employees are not granted the same basic rights as private sector workers in North Carolina, in the United States and across the globe. Why should nurses, police oficers, firefighters and sanitation workers not have the same rights as a UPS driver? GS 95-98, which prohibits government workers from bargaining is so outmoded and illegitimate that in 2007, the United Nations actually issued a statement demanding that North Carolina repeal the law on the grounds that it violated internationally agreed-upon standards of basic worker rights.
Obviously, I'm biased on this matter. But as evidenced by Smitty and Blue South's exchange, I've found that once you calmly and rationally go through the specifics of this issue most people support restoring public employees basic rights. The prohibition on collective bargaining is, in my opinion, is a shameful remnant of our state's plantation democracy. North Carolina and Virginia are the only two states in the country with laws denying public workers their basic rights and I think it's high time we join the rest of the country and the world in repealing that draconian statute and I certainly hope Mr. Young reconsiders his position on this matter.
Now - putting on my democratic activist hat – with all of that said, I appreciate Mr. Young's willingness to come here and engage in this dialogue, Though I strongly disagree with his position on this particular issue, I don't believe that collective bargaining falls under the purview of the state party chair and furthermore I don't feel like his opposition to collective bargaining should disqualify him from serving as Chairman.
While I am disappointed with Mr. Young's position on this issue, I am also interested to hear more about his vision for the future of our party. And that goes for the other candidates as well. I hope that BlueNC can host more discussions like this about the future of our party and our state. I'd also welcome the opportunity to discuss collective bargaining, worker rights and the union movement in general on these pages.
Thanks again to Blue South and others for standing up for North Carolina's workers and thank you David Young for engaging us in this dialogue. It's good to know that, despite our disagreement on this issue, you are willing to hear us out and that as Chairman you won't let your ideological differences get in the way of the Democratic Party platform which clearly states North Carolina Democrat's support for collective bargaining rights for all workers.
I certinaly think that you
I certinaly think that you can err on the side of the needy and business at the same time as long as those businesses can create work for the needy.
SAY IT AIN'T SO JERRY
The following appears on Gary Pearce's blog:
http://www2.talkingaboutpolitics.com/
How did David Young suddenly emerge as the leading candidate for Democratic Party chair? Here’s the story from one party insider:
Governor Perdue was supporting David Parker, a long-time party activist who has wanted to be chair for years. But Chairman Jerry Meek didn’t like being told what to do. He reminded the Governor that he beat then-Governor Easley’s pick for chair four years ago.
Perdue made a strategic retreat. She and Meek agreed to back Young. Perdue called Parker, and he agreed to step aside.
The Governor didn’t need that fight now. That’s another smart move in what has been a remarkably successful launch for her administration.
*******************************************************************************
Senator Doug Berger
Doesn't sound like Jerry.
Maybe he'll show up and comment on the story.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
RECONSIDER THE COMPROMISE
I am convinced that Gary Pearce correctly identifies Jerry Meek a principal in promoting David Young as a candidate for State Chair.
I hold tremendous respect for Jerry and appreciate his strong Democratic leadership on a range of issues that have confronted citizens in my Senate District. Jerry will attest to the fact that I fought with him in the General Assembly, in a confrontation with Governor Easley, to preserve the power of the State Chair to appoint members to the State Board of Elections.
Jerry’s support of David Young to serve as our Party Chair is deeply disappointing. It is evident from Young’s actions over a course of time that he does not support the rights of millions of working citizens across this State. In the case of workers injured at work, including hundreds of thousands who lack access to any health insurance, he actively supports rolling back the protection workers have enjoyed in North Carolina since 1929.
Holding positions so diametrically opposed to policies at the heart of the Democratic Party justify his rejection as Party Chair. If Young had written an essay in the past year in opposition to reproductive rights, he would be unacceptable to serve as the leader of our Party. The rights of hard working North Carolinians should be no less expendable.
It is important that progressive Democrats do not fall into a "good old boy" trap in supporting the compromise candidate agreed to by Jerry Meek. Advocates for labor need to press Jerry Meek to reach a different compromise candidate.
Senator Doug Berger
Whoa here, so does this mean that Parker
is out of the running? I do not recall seeing anything from him indicatng that he has withdrawn. This is some unholy crap if it is true. The rank and file members of the SEC should decide who the next Chair will be, not a couple of people in Raleigh. I had thought we were past that nonsense and were about keeping the democracy in the Democratic Party.
Mr. Parker, please stay in the race.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
Handpicking the party chair
The N&O confirmed that Mr. Parker dropped out of the race upon hearing that Mr. Young had wrapped up the Governor's endorsement. See here:
And yes, Jerry Meek did endorse Mr. Young along with many other powerful and influential democrats. Young's late entry and laundry-list of endorsers is an all-but appointment of the party chair by Governor Perdue and the Raleigh powerful.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that. This is how politics is played and these guys are pros. But the way this went down seems to be a far cry from Chairman Meek's previous statements on the matter. From the N&O a few months back:
Union support to the NCDP and Democrats around the state
This article is hitting the papers tomorrow.
NC unions looking again for legislative success