8:33 Debate ends. Wrapup coming
8:29-Republicans–Matt says-one more dichotomy, do you believe that labour and management are at odds. Shouldn’t they come together to create profits (I thought the Republican point was that Harvard shouldn’t make profits). Matt-we have to protect the long term financial health so we can retain our dominance as the top employer in the region? See the big picture, that no one gets a free lunch. (missed the rimshot, “at Greenhouse Cafe”)
8:27–Democratic conclusion begins by citing John Kenneth Galbraith. Always a politic cite at Harvard. They claim median wages have stagnated, inequality has skyrocketed, and the balance of government should be “restored to unions.” Are you on the side of the women who work hard for their families or the bosses who keep them underpaid. (Well, when you put it like that….are there puppies involved?)
8:25–Republicans go back to the people sign cards who wouldn’t otherwise vote for a union in secret. Democrats-workplaces are not a democracy.
8:24–Question: Does card check really get rid of the secret ballot?
8:22–Democrats say that unions will make tradeoffs to ensure higher wages AND more employment. Republicans claim that Detroit proves unions make lower wages AND less employment. I think I want to join a Democratic union, not a Republican one
8:21–I don’t think anyone is asking to unionize the endowment managers earning $300,000. I thought they made a little more.
8:20-Colin Motley, President of the Republican club, asks Democrats “if card check increases wages for workers who have jobs, but decreases the jobs available, is that a good thing.”
8:19–Democrats-People don’t make decisions based on what percentage of the budget goes to stein clubs.
8:17–Republicans-Let’s preserve the endowment (that’s a very Burkian sentiment). Also, preserving jobs makes up a comparatively better college.
8:15–Question time. Elise Liu takes the first to Republicans–where should the money go if not to workers? Also, if Harvard doesn’t exist in a vacuum, why should we cut more jobs than average?
8:13–Democrats–Cut student budgets to afford workers. That’s going to make them very unpopular with the Stein Club set.
8:11–Republicans-If we didn’t invest socially responsibly, we could afford more workers. Isn’t that a question for Michael Sandel: How many tons of CO2 equal one janitor?
8:08–And now the Republican position: It sucks. The sucks refers to layoffs, oh you of the dirty mind. Also “this university doesn’t exist to give workers jobs. We need to save money so that we can expand to Allston and Brighton.” Is it just me, or do the expansions always make you quote Caesar: “Omnia Allston in tres partes divisa est.”
8:06– Democrats say ways to save money include: Cancel Christmas Vacation, cut salaries of highest earners. Also, MIT hasn’t laid anyone off so Harvard shouldn’t. I’m tempted to make a they can do math jokes, but then realized I nearly flunked Math 21.
8:05–At last, the intresting stuff—student layoffs.
8:03–Republicans cite Frank McCollegh (??)–unless a union gets more than 3/4s of signatures, they’re less than 50-50 in elections. Seems a convoluted statistic.
8:01–The Democrats finally come out in support of card check qua card check. The claim: Not only is there less management pressure, there’s less management pressure. Problem: this is a survey. Hmm, wonder how it was taken. “Say I’m not pressuring you or I’ll break your legs.”
7:59– Ah, the language log finds a solution. The Republicans come out swinging about the part of the bill that’s about signing cards to get unions, the Democrats come out in support of the whole bill.
7:56: Card Check comes up. Language note–I notice that Peter Bacon calls it card check. The democrats call it EFCA, the Republicans go back and forth.
7:54: “There’s no obligation to know the salaries of other employees.” I take it someone has never paid Liar’s poker with pay envelopes.
7:53: Counter-counter-counter: “There’s a lack of information on both sides.”–partially, also a lack of animation. Can’t you call each other dirty hippies or capitalist pigs or something like that?
7:52-Counter-rebuttal: “There needs to be an end to it, as soon as you find out you get a discriminatory paycheck, you should sue. What is unreasonable is to say that you can accept a paycheck, wait 20 years, then sue people who never signed off on your paycheck.”
7:51-Rebuttal-“Every time a discriminatory paycheck is being given, it’s like a crime is being comitted. They should be given the opportunity to be punished. It’s like a crime is being comitted.”
7:50- Peyton goes into a technical dicussion about how extended discrimination will swing the balance of power unduly to the lawyers. Didn’t Shakespeare say, “first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers?”
7:49: Dylan catches Peyton’s slip. Apparently, American employers don’t need to discriminate to fire women.
7:47: Dyan Matthews–The question is whether discrimination should fall under increased statute of limitations.
7:46: Question from Peter Bacon: Is the Lily Ledbetter act a good idea? Hmm, I wonder what the response will be.
7:44: Card Check goes by without a single mention of union thugs, Jimmy Hoffa…c’mon Republicans. Make this liveblog intresting.
7:43: Time runs out on the Democrats and the Republicans begin. Peyton Miller takes the opening statement. He also begins with Ledbetter, which apparantly increases the costs of hiring women. Discrimination works?
7:42: The Employee Free Choice Act–card check comes up. By the Democrats, naturally.
7:40: Ellen Riley and Dylan Matthews, the Democratic representatives begin with the time-tested strategy: “Let me tell you a story.” Unfortunately, for those Beverly Hillbillies fans expecting a bouncy tune, Riley goes off on the rather depressing Ledbetter case. She tells it well, but I’m still not quite sure what it has to do with layoffs.
7:38: Peter Bacon, head of the Harvard Political Union, begins the debate with a quick introduction.
