It would only be ironic if there were such a thing as a picketer's union, and the carpenter's union was going out of its way to avoid hiring unionized picketers.

But that isn't what's happening.

The real story is that unions, including the carpenter's union in this case, are hiring people to protest entities that don't hire unions. Nowhere is it written that picketers must be members of a union to picket on behalf of union causes.

Again, if this were a case of unions giving preference to non-union picketers over unionized picketers, THAT would be ironic. But this isn't ironic: it's a union hiring the unemployed for PR work. That's all.

The problem I have with you and the WSJ reporter is the way you've twisted this non-story to make the carpenter's union appear hypocritical and unprincipled. You call it "irony", but an honest reading of the facts does not yield such an interpretation.

What business does Neatorama have highlighting crude, right-wing hit pieces?

What exactly is so objectionable about unions hiring non-union picketers? Does it even make sense for picketers to unionize? Do you have any idea how unions are created, or the conditions under which unionization makes sense? Why the hell would a bunch of short term, no-skill "professional" picketers who work a few weeks out of the year need union representation?!

If Alex or the author of the WSJ article weren't reporting in bad faith, maybe they would point out that management often keeps lawyers, lobbyists, and public relation firms on retainer for the exact same reason the carpenter's union hired picketers: to manage public perception.

But somehow, when Unions do this, it's a bad thing.

This kind of shit is exactly why I will no longer visit Neatorama.

How does A.A. work?

It doesn't.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

@ashley

Read my post again.

I never said that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I merely questioned the inclusion of *Confederate* General Robert E. Lee on a list of top *United States* Generals. Pointing out that the Confederacy supported slavery was simply my way of insulting it and the imbeciles who honor the memory of that backstabbing, semi-feudal slave state.

@stupidsheep

Are you one of those stupid dickheads who reflexively responds to comments that you clearly don't comprehend?

I object to General Lee's inclusion on a list of great *United States* generals.

Last I checked, Lee sided with the traitorous, backwards, slavery-loving confederacy.

Do we have any numbers on people who get into fights during other songs? This could always just be a case of confirmation bias. I have a feeling we'll never know.

Yeah, 50% tax rate sounds pretty oppressive.

You know what else is oppressive?

U.S. higher education costs
U.S. healthcare costs
U.S. transportation costs
U.S. childcare costs
U.S. retirement costs

A 50% tax rate sounds pretty high until you realize that the average American pays substantially more for the same services enjoyed by
other citizens in the western world through their governments.

Entrepreneurship is a wonderful thing, but the conservative, low tax vision for this country doesn't leave much room for it. Low taxes mean
fewer government services. Fewer services means that citizens must rely on the private sector for basic services like healthcare, etc. The private sector, by definition, is motivated primarily by profit, meaning that the private sector has substantial incentive to keep pay and benefits low to keep profits high (and bargaining power to keep those benefits low, since every worker is under the same stress).

This isn't a recipe for entrepreneurship; its a recipe for producing a vast underclass of scared, docile workers too terrified of losing their benefits to even attempt to make their fortunes.

Wise government spending doesn't oppress the average worker--it liberates her from penury. Just imagine how much more entrepreneurial Americans would be if they could graduate from college without $30-100k in student loan debt, or worry about paying for healthcare, childcare, and retirement.

The limited government crowd isn't interested in helping those making
under $100k per year survive, and they certainly aren't interested in
entrepreneurship and "free markets". They're interested in maintaining a pliant, desperate workforce scared shitless at the prospect of losing
what few benefits they have. A scared workforce serves the interest of corporate America much more than a healthy, confident, debt-free workforce.

Narrator: Michael was having brunch with Sally Sitwell at a restaurant called Skip Church's Bistro. In addition to brunch, the restaurant was known for an item on the menu called the "Skip's Scramble", an omelet that contained everything on the menu. Do not order the Skip's Scramble.

So much better than all that messy Democracy.

"Funemployment" may seem a cute neologism to the parasitic offspring of the upper classes and the morons who write about them, but for the vast majority of Americans it's a terrifying period of insecurity.

Maybe the author should have talked to a few of the millions of unemployed single mothers without college educations, or one of the millions of assembly line workers who've lost their jobs and all other employment opportunities over the past 20 years of America's industrial decline. I'm sure they'd love to talk about how fucking fun it is to be unemployed in a country without affordable health care, or the joy that comes from having to figure whether to pay the electricity or mortgage this month.

Better yet, here's a tip to for the wealthy and their media friends: keep your glib, asinine observations about unemployment to yourself. Nobody in the real world wants to hear about how you and your prodigal children choose to waste money.

Get a job!