« What Nobody Wants to Talk About | Main | People Sayin' Pop Fell Off » Unions . . . In Space!26 Feb 2007 10:16 am I thought last night's Battlestar: Galactica was pretty clumsy and rushed (the dudes who write this show seem to have lost track of the multi-episode arc concept or any notion of episode-to-episode consistency) but I like to think of it as a sign of the times that for the first time I remember someone put together an episode of television that was just about . . . why unions are awesome and the human race needs them. Let's pass that Employee Free Choice Act, eh. Comments (29)
Does no one remember that Baltar was in no way a friend to unions on New Caprica? Where the hell did he get all this socialist revolutionary cred from? How the hell does Cally of all people start believing that Baltar is an ok guy? Sorry, I'm just frustrated. 
Completely agree. Great concept, very poorly executed. Roslin's shift from belligerent to reasonable felt like it must of had two or three important scenes cut.
I wasn't paying enough attention last night to comment, but my wife was bugged for the same reasons as DJ. If Roslin and Adama felt like negotiating, why not do so from the beginning? Their whole point seemed to be to break down the chief for the hell of it, then to revert to the position they could have adopted at any time without all the trouble. That said, in the wake of Veronica Mars ditching class issues in Season 3, it seems as if BSG might now have the title for the TV show paying the most attention to them.
I don't think all of the criticisms of (the writing of) Roslin are fair. There's a parallel with the teacher's strike on Caprica before the war. In that situation she arranged for substantive bargaining to occur, but only after the teacher's union pledged an end to militancy. So this is her modus operandi. For what it's worth, as a unionist Roslin pisses me off. She's totally willing to negotiate as long as the union folds its winning hand first.
I haven't seen this episode yet (stuck waiting for iTunes), but the show always seems to fall apart a bit at this point in the season, before the final big "push". I think part of the problem (at least from listening to Ron Moore's podcasts) is that the network demands at least a certain number of "single-story" episodes, so these are done to play along. Other reasons for the problem - they blew a big portion of their budget this season doing location shoots for the Eye of Jupiter Arc and they had an entire subplot about Sagittaron that was supposed to play out during the final episodes, and they decided it sucked, so they scrapped it, even though at least several prior episodes that were laying the groundwork for the plot had already been shot, so they had to be "fixed" in editing (which is why we ended up with that mishmash of an episode about christian scientists).
I think many "libertarians" are against unions because many "libertarians" are conservatives who like to smoke pot. In other words, being anti-union is being anti-left, and so they are anti-union. I don't have any problem with unions, so long as membership is voluntary. Where laws or state regulations require union membership, that'd be the only time I'd have a concern, and in those respects, I'm not quite sure what's to be done since unions may have value. I do think that many unions historically in the U.S. have been anti-immigrant (they are a competing labor force) and introduce rigidity into the labor market. But I hold no brief for big corporations, so it's a wash for me.
Well, there's no law that says you have to belong to a union, but there definitely is such a thing as a closed shop. I'm not sure if you find that offensive.
Closed shop deals are (or rather should be) fine in libertarian terms - they're the result of a contract between the union and the employer, freely entered into on both sides without force or the threat of force.
dr: That’s clearly what the writers were trying to do. In my view they just did it poorly. The captain said he’d been complaining for months and had been ignored. Then the chief gave them numerous opportunities to negotiate in good faith and was only given token concessions before he called the strike. Also, why was the first cave-in by the unionists (getting the machine up and running again) insufficient? So when did things finally change? When there was a strike. Yet we’re supposed to believe Roslin/Adama don’t give in to demands. Just be reasonably and ask politely and they’ll listen. Right. Like the poster above said, it felt like they just decided they really needed the “Who’s your daddy?” showdown with the chief. … I was hoping they’d run with the idea Roslin’s anger with Baltar was preventing her from being objective. Maybe they just didn’t have time.
Re: Libertarians and Unions TheCoach in comment #1 is right that from a high-level perspective, libertarians seem like they ought to be philosophically predisposed for unions. 123@gmail.com is right that a certain amount of libertarian antipathy towards unions is basically the result of not wanting to be perceived as a hippy -- liberals are for unions, hence libertarians must be against unions. If the conservative/libertarian split grows more pronounced, we'll presumeably see less of this. But there's some other stuff going on, too: 1. Most libertarians are generically "pro-business/market," and they perceive, rightly or wrongly, unions as being institutions which introduce inefficiencies into the market/prevent businesses from providing goods and services at the best prices/whatever. This is kind of philosophically inconsistent (the market ideology would say that businesses which have these kinds of inefficiencies will be punished by the market if it really is inefficient), but hey, it's not like liberals or conservatives have a monopoly on adherents whose beliefs are more dogmatic than thought through. 2. At least some "pro-union" activity basically comes down to things like "making it illegal for a business to fire someone who's trying to unionize the workers," which could reasonably be seen as the government sticking its coercive power into the private negotiations/power struggles of two private parties. Since unionization has historically been a liberal hobby-horse and not a libertarian one, the toolset used to achieve it is the liberal one of activist government. This can end up meaning that even if libertarians have no problems with the ends, they oppose the means.
Minivet - Yes, but Battlestar Galactica is actually pleasurable to watch. It staggers me that an outline and mythology as compelling as those of B5 should be so goddamn insufferable onscreen. As for important scenes being cut - my sense, from listening to Ron Moore's podcasts, is that a lot of material ends up on the cutting-room floor; at one point this season they shot a single episode that was nearly long enough for a two-parter, and just fleshed it out a bit for that purpose (the extraordinary 'Exodus' ep, as I recall - the escape from New Caprica). BSG's occasional tendency to go for 'iconic' and 'brisk' at the expense of 'characterologically coherent' is frustrating, but it continues (even at its worst) to make for mostly-compelling TV. Plus, wasn't this a Jane Espenson episode? High marks automatically. :)
Babylon 5 did it first As did Deep Space Nine. O'Brien's speech about his ancestor the "union man" is quite stirring, actually.
The other day, a friend who had spent several years living with relatives there told me that in Germany (and I guess throughout Europe) most everyone in a factory belongs to the union, including those who here would be considered "management." He said that only a very few people among the heads of the corporation were not union members. This makes, not only for a larger union membership, but also for greater solidarity when there is a strike. I don't know how the wedge between workers and management came into being here. It has certainly been used to good effect, as more and more workers are classified as "managment." This is something that needs to be addressed if there is to be a renewed resurgence of union organizing and worker rights.
I liked that Baltar was the one who was intellectually formenting this agitation. I'm sure that Jane Espenson was following the mantra that evil characters are more interesting when they're NOT lying. Baltar is a smart cookie. If he sees social dysfunction that he can exploit in order to save his own skin, he's gonna do it. I dunno how I feel about Roslin caving so quickly--I liked the idea that while she fundamentally sympathized with the underclass, she was out of touch and not thinking of the big picture consequences of her inaction. But her turnaround did come a bit too fast, though one can rationalize it given her prior behavior with the teachers' union. But I agree, I really LOVED that they showed unions as a powerful force for making society work properly. A necessity, not a luxury. And on another note, while I see Adama's point on mutiny, I think he only pulled this because of class issues--no knuckledragger was gonna put HIM over a barrel. I mean, this is a guy who put his own son back in charge after his son had led a mutiny & escape. I think Adama's elitism led him to made a huge mistake in the way he went after the Chief--by threatening Callie, forcing the Chief to back down, and only then giving the Chief the negotiations he wanted as a reward for giving in. I can't imagine this little lesson is something the chief will forget. I'd think, given the chief's character, that it would poison things between them for a long time. And frankly, if I were the chief, I'd be keenly aware that the admiral had a son of his own, and I'd be looking for ways to ensure that if the Admiral ever saw fit to threaten to kill my wife again, he'd see fit to back down.
I dunno, anonymous. Haven't there already been like nine other events to poison the chief against Adama? (I'm thinking of all the stuff surrounding the boxing episode). Maybe this is just all building to something? I'm having the hardest time believing anyone in that fleet could start quoting Baltar favorably, even if his rhetoric is very appealing. They really fucking hated this guy not two episodes ago.
I can't imagine this little lesson is something the chief will forget. I'd think, given the chief's character, that it would poison things between them for a long time. And frankly, if I were the chief, I'd be keenly aware that the admiral had a son of his own, and I'd be looking for ways to ensure that if the Admiral ever saw fit to threaten to kill my wife again, he'd see fit to back down. Fortunately for Adama, the chief—like all other characters on the show—has his memory wiped at the end of each episode, and will have no recollection of any of this come next Sunday. Consistency and continuity gripes aside, best episode since Eye of Jupiter, no question.
I thought it was pretty good for cable TV - made you think -, if a bit clumsy at points as people have said. Especially the turn from confrontation and polarization to reconcilliation. Baltar is certifiably insane, so whatever he does doesn't have to fit into a pattern or be consistent. Adama is a military man, so in his mind it was a mutiny. Roslin said they're at war (like the U.S. today) But the question is do they do away with democracy, rights, checks and balances in order to, in some minds, have a better chance to surive their conflict with the Cylons. But as the Chief kept pointing out, what kind of society do they want? One with lots of inequality and stratification and strong class distinctions, or one that is more fair and just? This is the difference between leftists and rightwingers. Rosalin says unions are the way to keep inequality in check. Rightwingers believe inequality is the natural order of things and there isn't much you can do about it. (Like how in Iraq we really can't do anything about the Shiite-Sunni rivalry). C'est La Vie. To reactionaries, Unions are just used by demogogues to extort money from "entrepeneurs" and the "productive".
I thought the episode of Grey's Anatomy dealing with unions was pretty friendly, too. :-) I love George!
Libertarians will defend contract slavery. That's not a theoretical point either, there are millions of people doing just that who will never pay off their debts. As a matter of fact it happens in U.S. territories (Northern Mariana Islands). They import a good deal of Chinese labor who they throw onto planes to have forced abortions back in China if they get pregnant. All the crap has a made in the USA label, and I'm pretty sure 99% of libertarians wouldn't want to get in the way of the sacred contract between these two.
I was really hoping Adama would kill Calley. Chief was better off with the cylon. In terms of class, when was the last time a protaganist or family on a tv show was poor and non-criminal? Veronica Mars started off as "rich" and fell on hard times so she only counts for half. I am thinking Roseanne poor.
This would make a good movie: Cesar Chavez's war on illegal immigration to keep wages up for his unionized farmworkers, which included sending his brother to lead UFW staffers to patrol the border and beat up illegal immigrants.
Come on man - you hate all Mexicans legal or illegal.
As a mostly libertarian person, I don't have any problems with unions in the abstract. I think the price of labor is best left to the market & businesses should be able to hire whoever they want, but if groups of people, through strength of cooperative numbers, can compel Businesses to agree to only hire certain types of people and pay certain kinds of wages, so long as the matter is voluntary on the Businesses part, I have no problem with it on libertarian grounds. As such, were I a member of congress and the repeal of the Taft Hartley act came up for a vote, I would gladly vote yea on the condition that the preceding Wagner Act be stricken of the clauses prohibiting employers to hire and fire who they want & compelingg them to "recognize" any union formed by government coercion rather than voluntary consent. I'd also like the clause stricken from the Fair Labor Standards act mandating "overtime" pay or at least a way for individual employees to wave it but I wouldn't insist on it. Of course the likelyhood of Democrats ever agreeing to that is virtually nil. That's not an indictment of them in particular. Neither party bases it's issues on libertarian grounds, they each represent two different interests, neither of which cares much about using the power of the state to enforce it's particular wishes. So you have the "Labor" party trying to get businesses to recognize unions & indeed accept the demand for closed shops by cocercive law rather than voluntary acceptance and you have businesses trying to get laws passed sparing them from ever experiencing the indignity of being compelled by cooperative groups of workers to do something they would rather not. This tug of war between these two interests and their tactics are practically universal. You will see a parallel situation in every state in the western world. To ask if something is acceptable on libertarian grounds is to ask one of the most inconsequential questions possible, as it relates to politics.
i think there's a lot of complexity here that's being overlooked -- adama and ros aren't evil capitalists benefiting from the work of the masses. they're trying to hold together a fleet that is literally the only human society they know to remain. so they've got pretty good justification for putting survival above everything else, and there's not much basis to say that either adama or ros is powermad (ros yielded to baltar, adama split duties with lee, etc.). the place where adama draws the line makes some sense -- chief can't be allowed to mess with the only thing protecting the fleet. but both adama and ros also try to be sensitive to the needs of the people on the fleet, ensuring that the human society they protect is one worth protecting, etc. and it's unclear whether the workers on the fuel ship really are that much worse off than others (we've already seen some of the fairly horrific stuff the crew's been through, we don't really know what's going on in the rest of the fleet). so not only do i not read this an entirely pro union, i don't think it maps neatly onto our world.
Although it is not a TV series, the earliest portrayal of unions in space I recall was Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton demanding increase shares of cargo before diverting the Nostromo at the start of the original Alien. And I would eat my hat if there was not at least one Union reference on both Quark and Red Dwarf but I cannot remember any specifically. But NONE Of the ones I mention are particularly positive.
emqd kfdilsbuw gdxhvb vcxb lujxcvpkt fewap tyjomaf
Comments closed March 12, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matthew, as you have a disproportionate ammount of libertarian friends, can you shed some light on why libertarians, of all people, seem so opposed to unions?
To me it seems like a substitute for increased government regulation, but it seems to me that libertarians are about as opposed to facilitating worker organization as they are in favor of facilitating businesses to incorporate.
Posted by theCoach | February 26, 2007 10:32 AM