-
The Big Labor Puppets should have considered what Martin Luther King Jr. would have done. He’s shown here at UCLA in 1965. (UC photo)
Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark, Henry Waxman and other Big Labor Puppets really blew it by reneging on their promises to deliver commencement speeches at UC campuses this week.
They withdrew at the last minute in solidarity with the thousands of healthcare and service workers who have been toiling without a contract for months.
Hey, I support the workers, too. And the UC Regents, one of the most arrogant, unresponsive public bodies in the Western Hemisphere, deserve a thrashing over their handling of the dispute.
But silent protest isn’t the way to do it. These BLP’s should have followed through on their promise to speak and spent half of their time at the podium railing against the UC system’s abuse of its workers and the importance of the labor movement in a global economy. To reinforce the message of protest, placard-carrying workers could have filled the first 20 rows. And just imagine the publicity had Clinton brought one of the workers to the podium for a two-minute personal tale of hardship. Talk about blown opportunities. The union leadership let an ideal forum slip away.
The BLPs passed up making their appeals to an audience of influential parents and big-money donors to the university. Their words would be more memorable than their no-show status. (Not sure about you, but it’s hard for me to remember something that didn’t happen.)
Plus, what better way to educate the graduating class to the evil ways of the world, and to present to them a sympathetic argument about the low- to middle-income workers whose lives may be so much different from their own?
It’s one thing to avoid staging a banquet at a hotel embroiled in a labor dispute, but plain dumb to give up the podium at a university caught in the middle of a labor dispute. The initial disappointment in losing a big-name speaker quickly passes.
The only downside to the BLPs actually showing up: It would have forced them to make a meaningful commitment to the workers. During their speeches, I would have advised them to announce plans to join the workers in taking their gripes to the UC Regents, and to walk picket lines at ULCA and other campuses. And, for old times sake, to engage in some civil disobedience with them. Maybe even get arrested.
It is ironic that one of the last-minute speakers tapped to fill in for Clinton at UCLA is Arianna Huffington, who’s built her Web site into a national mouthpiece on the backs of mostly unpaid reporters and columnists. No wonder she has no qualms crossing a picket line. After all, the university isn’t stiffing workers like she does.
Now, that’s a cause for another protest.
What a travesty it would have been, for Clinton and the other pols you list to show up and sabbotage the students’ special day by spending “half their time” with pro-labor rants. Given that alternative, it’s a good thing that Bill didn’t show at all. If he HAD, he’d have doubtless been picketed as you advise, ruining the students’ day anyway. There’s a time and place for union protests, but a day to celebrate four years of student achievement is NOT it.
It was a surprise to those in attendance at the AFI tribute to Warren Beatty last night, to have Bill show up there, along with Ed McGovern and Gerry Brown. And of course Jack and Dianne raced over from the Lakers’ loss — ouch, how they blew an 18-pt first half lead. (It’ll be televised on USA in a couple of weeks.) He’s a good public speaker (except on his wife’s campaign trail, apparently) — too bad the UCLA students had to miss out. And the Times reports he spoke at his nephews’ elementary school commencement in the South Bay.
Oops, that’s “Dyan,” not Dianne.
AM: These BLP’s should have followed through on their promise to speak and spent half of their time at the podium railing against the UC system’s abuse of its workers and the importance of the labor movement in a global economy.
You really blew it on this one, Alan. If only liberals could resist making political statements no matter what the occasion. Liberals just can’t help themselves.
If I had been a parent in such a situation, I wouldn’t have walked out or made a lot of noise like liberals do to conservatives speakers, but I would have been incensed and felt that the graduation had been hijacked and ruined. Of course, the student is forced to listen if he wants to get his diploma.
If you want a soapbox, pay for it yourself and not with a captive audience.
Clinton did give a speech to students, after all. I guess he spoke in protest of not having peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on the school menu.
I really don’t see Arianna Huffington as some sort of scab-like exploiter. The essence of Web 2.0 is public participation, be it through posting videos on Youtube, reviewing restaurants on Yelp, or collaborating in reporting, a la Huffington Post or other sites.
Okay, maybe Arianna turns a personal profit by acting as the entrepreneur who unites the writers and engineers who make the website happen; all that distinguishes her from a Sulzberger is that 1. her product is online, not on paper; 2. the journalists in question are mostly hobbyists; 3. the readers understand in advance they’re getting a hobbyist-produced Huffington Post, not a professional Washington Post.
Brother, if you’re going to attack the evils of capitalism, why start with the Huffington Post? The proliferation of new voices who are actually starting to achieve cultural/social influence in this country is saving us from the NBCs and CNNs and New York Times. I’ll take Mayhill Fowler over Judith Miller any day.
huffington cancelled this afternoon.
WBC, God forbid students are forced to endure a few minutes of inconvenience on their “special day” so healthcare & service works can get decent contract. Are we really such a selfish society that we can’t put aside a few minutes to see to it that healthcare workers of all people get a what’s ode to them?
Oh, PUHleeze. Woody’s right on this one — “if only liberals could resist making political statements, whatever the occasion.” There are two sides to this issue, to be heard and dealt with in appropriate forums — not by hijacking a graduation. Sure, “put aside a few minutes to see to it that healthcare workers of all people get a what’s ode to them (sic)” — but as that sentence shows, education, not propaganda, should remain the priority of a university.
Woody’s also right that most parents, who’ve paid for their kids’ educations, have a right to enjoy that day to celebrate their kids, not be subjected to some personal gripes from some union. Advocating the hijacking of half the ceremony time for a union rant, is NOT a minor thing — do you have any idea of the expense of staging such an event? The costs and sacrifices families make to be there? The many OTHER extemporaneous issues that could be thrown in? Your assumption that every union is always right, and that they have a right to hold every ceremonial event hostage to their personal demands for money, especially this special day for students, is the most selfish thing I’ve heard. I’m sure they and their families would LOVE, in years to come, to replay videos of angry union activists who want to set the tone for their day. (If you hold by that logic, why not have UTLA activists hijack high school graduations, hotel workers hijack wedding ceremonies on the premises, and flight attendants air their gripes over the PSA to passengers held hostage in their seats?)
WBC: Hijack, sabotage? Frankly I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic. This isn’t an act of war. These are a bunch of boring people on stage, in my experience, dolling out a series of incredibaly platitudes. While the audience, sits in the heat, fidgeting and looking at their watchs. Can you remember one commencement speech you’ve ever heard?
You are certainly right that families sacrafice to put their kids through college. And at the end of it they are awarded a diploma. That’s what all the sacrifices and hard work are for, not to listen to someone yammer on a for an hour.
Again – having a few parents gripe is a small price to pay in exchange for thousands of people earning a decent wage. Frankly, I think, you have a rather cavalier attitude towards people. I imagine health care workers and social workers need to put their children through college as well.
Hijacking and sabbotaging events intended for other occasions and celebrations by a group whose gripes should be addressed in the appropriate forum, on the grounds that graduation ceremonies are boring anyway, is utterly absurd as well as selfish. If they don’t want to hear a motivational speaker “yammer on for an hour” (and Clinton does more than that, as hopefully anyone worth his/her salt would), do they want to sit hostage to some union activists?
As I said, if you buy this logic, by all means, every hotel’s catering and service staffs should hijack weddings held on their premises — after all, most such workers are dissatisfied, in my experience, and would like more money. Lots of people find long ceremonies boring obstacles to the eating and dancing. The minister should interrupt to make a case for the catering union.
A great place to start is with the workers at odds with hotel owners over the LAX-area “living wage” ordinance. There are numerous EXTREMELY boring conferences held there where people yammer on, with people paying hundreds and thousands to listen and attend, and no doubt they would all benefit from being forced to spend time they’ve paid for listening to union gripes instead. These event hijackings would make the hotels popular venues for future conferences, giving them plenty of business for the activists to fight over. Right. Enough — this is too ridiculous. Whatever.
All right last comment.
I wouldn’t say I’m selfish or absurd, I think I have rather good taste. Politicians speaking at a college commencement, or anywhere for that matter, strikes me as a deeply unpleasant experience.
Anyway, I don’t want to waste Celeste’s bandwidth discussing the state of Southern California’s catering industry. So I’ll only say WBC’s and Woody biggest issues seem to be listening to people say things they disagree with. Fine. Tough. There are more important things than whether or not you have to listen to statement you disagree with. Maybe the students will learn the imortance of looking out for one another, even when its their ‘special day.’
Whatever.
AC: Again – having a few parents gripe is a small price to pay in exchange for thousands of people earning a decent wage.
Typical liberal – Let someone else pay for what you want and don’t bother asking them–just take it. No class at all.
AC: So I’ll only say WBC’s and Woody biggest issues seem to be listening to people say things they disagree with. Fine. Tough.
You ABSOLUTELY miss the point. Rudeness and selfishness are liberal traits.
Woody – you disappoint me – usually you have much more clever snark.
Rude? Woody, you might actually like me once you get to know me. Well, probably not. But I’m hardly selfish. I don’t personally get anything out of healthcare workers getting what they deserve.
Satisfaction, perhaps?
BTW, AC, I didn’t meant to imply that you personally were rude and selfish in comment #13, but that liberals in general are, which is why they are known to ruin speeches and other events with protests for their causes and without regard to the feelings or wishes of others. They might as well take fire hoses and spray down everyone if they are going to ruin events and want to force people to submit to their demands. We could consider it the liberal equivalent to waterboarding.
Satisfaction. I’ll go with that. The liberal equivalent to waterboarding. That’s a good one.