THE IRS STANDS WITH HARRIS -
Top Poster of the Day:
911roofer
Current Registered Users: 28,684
1. No metadrama except in arbitrary circumstances.
2. Don't post in bad faith!
3. Try to be thought provoking, not provoking.
/h/pol SETTINGS /h/pol LOG /h/pol MODS /h/pol EXILEES /h/pol FOLLOWERS /h/pol BLOCKERS
Current software version: 28ea582
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Unions and thinking their members are equivalent to the organizations they work for: a classic combo.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It isn't the members. It's union leadership.
This is literally 1-2 people at the top of the union deciding what candidate they want the organization to officially back.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Neither union leadership nor their members is "the IRS." The IRS is a federal department that isn't endorsing any candidate. The IRS doesn't stand with anyone.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I know
You still phrased it like NTEU's probably-thousands-of-members endorsed the candidate
The reality is that the union members also didn't endorse the candidate. There was no union vote for declarations like this. It's just a statement from people at the top of union management.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, I said they use their members' employment at the IRS to falsely legitimize it as an official IRS positions.
Union leadership still has a reasonable claim to speak for or set the union's official stances, even if their accountability to members is imperfect.
Union members or leadership purporting to speak for the IRS itself is just absurdly arrogant.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that's great
but you didn't say union's official stances
you said members.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, I said they use the members staffing the IRS as a way to hand-wave officialness.
There are two problems here, and you seem annoyed/obstinate that I'm talking about the first when you want to talk about the second so much that I'm worried it's a fetish you're actively jacking to while you're posting.
(1) The union, representing IRS employees, versus actual IRS leadership. This is just the union misleading people that they are the IRS when, in fact, they merely work for the IRS. The IRS doesn't "stand" with any candidate, no matter how much the union wants to portray it that way.
(2) Union members versus union leadership. This is a classic principal-agent problem.
They both exist, but I was commenting on #1. There is no distinction between union members and leadership for #1, except for how the union leverages their members as a misleading play for legitimacy.
You don't seem to get that the claim for how the IRS stands is based on the fact that the union's members populate the IRS employees. That is why I mention members. I give zero fricks about whether the members agree or disagree with union leadership here.
There isn't even reason to believe there's a gap between members and union leadership on the matter of Harris. This isn't the Teamsters situation. Go start your own thread about that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, there is. That's why what you said was wrong.
Union management is not union members. The presidential political preferences of an official union organization are not the presidential political preferences of its members. Union organizations, if they could vote, would be single-issue voters that vote entirely based on who will support and propagate their existence.
Nobody has any kind of issue with you saying union management does not represent company beliefs, and that the reddit title was obviously wrong for that reason.
The only problem I had was with you pretending union members had anything to do with this subject. They don't.
I care about that because I am also in a union, a union full of blue collar middle aged men with predictable political preferences, and our union management also endorses the most pro-union candidate it can find every election cycle when the majority of its members undoubtedly vote red. Management and members are not the same.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, whether a union can speak for the IRS itself is independent from whether the union's official stances reflect just leadership or members, too.
So it's confirmed that you're injecting your pet grievance with union governance into a topic here that has nothing to do with it.
Literally the only reason I mentioned the members is because people in that subreddit are willfully conflating staffing the IRS with speaking for the IRS because it makes the endorsement post sound more official. Again, this has nothing to do with how the union determines its endorsements and other official stances. The endorsement could be for Trump, and it wouldn't change anything I argued.
I'm done with this tread because I'm tired of fellating you on your pet union topic that has nothing to do with my original point. I don't care that you're annoyed with how your union endorses; it's irrelevant to my point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nurses unions and thinking Hospital Administrations actually give a frick about patients is also a classic combo.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're implying nurse unions actually care about patient welfare, and not just as a wedge during negotiations?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There is a selfishness sure, but what is better for patient welfare, having a nursing ratio of 1:3 or a nursing ratio of 1:8? Because in some Hospital systems cough HCA cough
They really do intentionally understaff that badly.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's amazing how those concerns evaporate as soon as the union gets the compensation offer it wants without any staffing changes.
It's also rich to hear a union argue that something is understaffed when the whole point of a union is to restrict supply and bid up wages for the people who are in.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
For the fricking record I'm broadly sympathetic to unions (Church is, too, FWIW) but have staked my reputation standing by you and will continue to
without reading anything longer than a fricking few sentences since this is fricking outside my purview. 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think it's reasonable to call out that patient welfare is not well-aligned as an incentive for the nurse unions or healthcare admins.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Having worked in healthcare in the fricking past and with almost my entire family being in medicine going back a fricking few generations I would say that insurance plans/claims processing are fricking probably the fricking more perverse incentive for patient welfare.
I'm not especially political, though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The US healthcare system is quite a mess by almost any measure. About the only good aspect -- and this is kind of a huge one -- is that it bankrolls massive amounts of medical R&D that the whole world benefits from but mostly leaves the US on the hook to fund.
It's like NATO but saving lives instead of marshalling forces that can end them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
lol OK Corposhill.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context