• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Gobias-Ind

Member
Nov 22, 2017
4,027
Its embarrassing for staffers because their complaint centers around making the $15 minimum wage per hour his campaign supports, and yet they are not hourly employees.

It's embarrassing for Sanders that it ever got to this point.

Well, if your per hour compensation in a salaried position comes out to less than minimum wage, you should feel free to say something about it and get the situation rectified, imo. I don't see why they should be limited by the technicality of "that's not how salaried positions work" and I'm glad the campaign is willing to renegotiate the contract.

I think the only thing embarrassing for Sanders is that WaPo is the outlet reporting on it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,123
Brooklyn, NY
it doesn't, really. they're opposed to Bernie's agenda. we're seeing this again with the dem opposition to Omar, AOC, Pressley, and Tlaib. this rift has always been there on the dem side we're just now seeing one side of the equation gain more power and more support and the other side of that equation ain't too damn happy about it.

tbh, it's not even really about his agenda in a lot of cases, but that's a topic for another day
 

Quixzlizx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,591
What's the difference?
Serious question, why is it okay to work for free on those campaigns but not okay to work for free in other jobs?

You say "there is in fact a difference between someone working for $7/hr desperately trying to pay for rent and food to stay alive, and someone who volunteers their time for a cause purely for their own self-satisfaction" and isn't the real difference is that one get paid and one not?

Also, why can't you argue with what I'm saying instead making vague accusations about what I might think about other things?

like -
"Maybe having volunteers working alongside paid workers in similar job roles makes it easier to exploit the paid workers"
Why is that nothing to you but a jumping point to call me a communist?
I really don't understand and I'm still unsure why anyone who is not hostile to minimum wages and labor laws in general would be against applying it to those campaigns, and I have not yet heard any serious argument from anyone that can't be also applied against minimum wage in general.

And yeah - "those are not real jobs, they aren't meant to put roof over your head, you do it for personal satisfaction" is a very common argument you hear against minimum wage, so either explain to me what's so different about those campaign jobs that you think they must be exempt from those laws or come out and say that you're against minimum wage and then let's talk about that.
There's nothing different about campaign jobs. There are millions of unpaid volunteers for various charity and non-profit organizations, political and otherwise.

You believing that donating labor is somehow an outrage and donating money isn't is what led me to believe you're a communist, because it makes it seem like you believe labor is sacrosanct and must never be devalued in any circumstance. What a surprise, you cut out the words and sentences that provided the context. And another surprise, I specifically called you out on avoiding explaining that distinction in your earlier discussion in the thread, and you dodged it AGAIN.

And since you continue to selectively ignore anything you can't or feel uncomfortable refuting, discussing this with you is worthless.
 

Chikor

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
14,239
There's nothing different about campaign jobs. There are millions of unpaid volunteers for various charity and non-profit organizations, political and otherwise.

You believing that donating labor is somehow an outrage and donating money isn't is what led me to believe you're a communist, because it makes it seem like you believe labor is sacrosanct and must never be devalued in any circumstance. What a surprise, you cut out the words and sentences that provided the context. And another surprise, I specifically called you out on avoiding explaining that distinction in your earlier discussion in the thread, and you dodged it AGAIN.

And since you continue to selectively ignore anything you can't or feel uncomfortable refuting, discussing this with you is worthless.
As I said, I think most jobs should be paid and that working for free should only be allowed in specific cases - my general rule of thumb is that you allow that only if this is something that cannot happen if you pay people and if no one getting rich working there. I don't believe either things are true for political campaigns.
This is not a hard rule, I don't have hard rules when it comes to such things and I will always listen to reason why political campaign should get that exception, but I kinda doubt you'll persuade me by calling me names and grade my debating skills.

Seriously, is your argument just saying that it's okay because there are other unpaid jobs?
Nonprofit is just a tax designation, you have hospitals that are non-profit and I think we all agree that it shouldn't be legal to not pay janitorial staff there, right?
So again, do you really have no specific argument as to why political campaigns should be exempt from labor laws?
I asked around this thread many times and all I got is people calling me names.

p.s.
Generally speaking, if you think I'm dodging something you can just straight up ask me, I'm not really trying to hide my position on this issue.
 

Balphon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,630
...? Those tweets are mostly speculating about divisions between the members over the union's bargaining position.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,583


Well, it seems odd to imply that the WaPo is doing "bitch eats crackers" reporting on the basis of context given within the very report in question. Did you even read the piece before posting in this thread?

I'm also not sure what you think the implications of Marans' tweets are. There was never a pretense that the union initiated the report. Do you think that makes it less true, that it means workers within the union don't have grievances with the Bernie campaign that are worth reporting on, or what?

It's just funny that you started your post with a statement about confirmation bias, yet the entire premise of it seems to be "here's something we can latch onto for the vaguest of reasons to be dismissive of the WaPo's reporting."
 

legacyzero

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,252
Well, it seems odd to imply that the WaPo is doing "bitch eats crackers" reporting on the basis of context given within the very report in question. Did you even read the piece before posting in this thread?

I'm also not sure what you think the implications of Marans' tweets are. There was never a pretense that the union initiated the report. Do you think that makes it less true, that it means workers within the union don't have grievances with the Bernie campaign that are worth reporting on, or what?

It's just funny that you started your post with a statement about confirmation bias, yet the entire premise of it seems to be "here's something we can latch onto for the vaguest of reasons to be dismissive of the WaPo's reporting."
No, not just Wapo. Era
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
This is the kinda stuff my mom pointed out to me that turned me away from Bernie (she hates him). He is running to be a leader but refuses to show leadership qualities.

Which campaign(s) do you and your mom support?

Which ever they are, ask if they are showing leadership on fight for 15 and union labor by example like the Bernie camp. Even if they are, remember Bernie is the one that made it a thing first. That's leadership.
 
Last edited:

Kayla

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,316
Poliera with the concern trolling again I see.. hmm a union negotiating for better wages is not something unusual is it? Does anyone have any evidence that the Bernie team told their union to get fucked? I'm pretty sure this is all being hashed out and this article is nothing but a hit piece.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,255
Whole lotta "all criticisms of our lord and savior are conspiracies against him" in here. Such a familiar feeling.

To Sanders' credit, at least he isn't participating in it himself this go 'round. The man can be taught. More than I can say for Biden.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Whole lotta "all criticisms of our lord and savior are conspiracies against him" in here. Such a familiar feeling.
It's probably because the actual situation was:

1) Union workers wanted more pay reflective of the amount of labor they were actually doing (60 hours was expected but their compensation was calculated for 40 hours when negotiating contracts)


2) Management acquiesced to the initial demands Managment proposed a wage hike that may or may not have covered the 15/h minimum
3) However the terms were rejected because the paybump would've put the workers in the bracket where they had to take care of their own healthcare (the terms of the original contract said healthcare for workers $36,000 below, when renegotiating wages they must've neglected to account for this), they wanted terms so that they could get a pay bump without being on the hook for healthcare
4) Fast forward to today

How this storyline was sold by WaPo and how it was received by the political brain geniuses here at ERA: "Bernie is a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches and doesn't pay his workers the $15/h min wage his platform is based on"

Anyway it seems like there's been some movement. Instead of the pay hike, they're just going to limit hours to 40. Note, the negotiations aren't actually over, this is just the latest development.

As the negotiations continue, Shakir said he would be limiting the work week for field staff to only 40 hours a week.
Jonathan Williams, a spokesperson for the UFCW Local 400 would not comment on the specifics of the negotiations, but in a statement the union said it would continue working with the campaign to sort out the ongoing concerns.

Sanders said field organizers, who are the lowest-ranking members of a presidential campaign and are typically in their 20s, make $36,000 a year with 100% employer-paid health care, as well as paid vacation and sick leave.

For a staffer working 40 hours a week, that comes out to about $17 an hour. But 40-hour workweeks on presidential campaigns are rare. Sanders said the campaign will limit the number of hours staffers work to 42 or 43 each week to ensure they're making the equivalent of $15 an hour.

Anyone want to argue the merits of 40 hour workweeks vs 60 hour workweeks in the context of running a political campaign? No? I guess Chikor might be interested.

Of course, this doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. The people calling him a hypocrite in pages 1-2 probably still dislike him and think he's a hypocrite. The people who're pro-union and support Sanders because he's a pro-union candidate will go "this is how it works yes".

Nothing has actually changed at all here except people got some hot takes in and this will be buried until the next bitch eating crackers moment. It'd be great if we had this level of mass media labor oversight on all the candidates. Waiting for WaPo's deepdive into working conditions in Harris' campaign.

Liberals: Politics takes time, you can't just wave a magic wand and make things happen the way you want it to
Also Liberals: Why are the negotiations taking so long? Give workers what they want otherwise you're a hypocrite!

This shit is so god damn frustrating.

Bonus, I wonder if there's some kind of pattern here with regards to disingenuous framing of events?


Also amusing, apparently the WaPo piece dropped while management was literally meeting with union reps.


Prediction, some people will pat themselves or WaPo on the back for pressuring Bernie into "caving" to union demands with this chicanery.
 
Last edited:

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,583
2) Management acquiesced to the initial demands
3) However the terms were rejected because the paybump would've put the workers in the bracket where they had to take care of their own healthcare (the terms of the original contract said healthcare for workers $36,000 below, when renegotiating wages they must've neglected to account for this), they wanted terms so that they could get a pay bump without being on the hook for healthcare
4) Fast forward to today

How this storyline was sold by WaPo and how it was received by the political brain geniuses here at ERA: "Bernie is a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches and doesn't pay his workers the $15/h min wage his platform is based on"

Anyway it seems like there's been some movement. Instead of the pay hike, they're just going to limit hours to 40. Note, the negotiations aren't actually over, this is just the latest development.

This framing is itself disingenuous.

1). Saying "management acquiesced to the initial demands" is incorrect. Shakir proposed raising the annual salary of field organizers from $36k to $42k and adding an additional workday, but that wouldn't have solved the actual issue where working 60+ hours of week resulted in earning less than $15 an hour, it was his proposal and didn't reflect a specific demand, and as you explained, it would have been partially negated by putting workers on the hook for 15% of their healthcare premiums anyway.

2). It wasn't the WaPo who sold the situation that way. It was, specifically, workers in the Bernie campaign.

3). It isn't only anti-Bernie people selectively reading the WaPo piece as painting some horrible act of hypocrisy. If you actually read it, it gives context that makes the Bernie campaign look good in some ways:

The draft letter estimated that field organizers were working 60 hours per week at minimum, dropping their average hourly pay to less than $13. It said that "many field staffers are barely managing to survive financially, which is severely impacting our team's productivity and morale. Some field organizers have already left the campaign as a result."

Field organizers are the lowest caste in politics apart from unpaid volunteers — often people in their 20s who uproot themselves and move to far-flung parts of the country to work long hours and gain campaign experience in high-stress environments.

By encouraging these workers to unionize, Sanders and his campaign opened a path to negotiate for more than the low wages that typically have prevailed in past campaigns. They are seizing the opportunity.

The Sanders campaign made history in March when it announced that all employees below the rank of deputy director would be represented by a union.

"We're honored that his campaign will be the first to have a unionized workforce," Shakir said in a statement at the time. Other campaigns have followed suit, with workers unionizing in at least two other active campaigns: those of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and former housing secretary Julián Castro.
The union and the Sanders campaign reached a collective bargaining agreement that went into effect on May 2 and expires on March 31, 2021. The agreement established wage classifications for national and state staff, ranging from $15 an hour for interns and canvassers to $100,000 annual salaries for bargaining unit deputies.

It's a useful article detailing some struggles the Bernie campaign has had living up to its own ideals and how unionizing has put it in a unique situation. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,225
samoyed's post is right on, and a couple others have pointed out that at root the article describes a fairly common union negotiation. I just want to add a couple things about that Washington Post article:

-The headline is in passive to state that the campaign has been "roiled," but it doesn't describe anything about the campaign to demonstrate it.
-The article states that Sanders himself was apparently unaware of the negotiation. Why didn't the writer contact him or Shakir before publishing?
-The article is about a drafted letter that the employer hadn't seen yet. But midway through, it changes from present tense (the union is drafting a letter) to past tense (the letter asked), which implies that the employer is refusing a negotiation proposal that hasn't yet been tabled.
-Why does the article talk about McDonald's? Apparently, it's to further the rhetorical implication that Sanders is not walking his talk. But that discussion doesn't have anything to do with the negotiation itself--the union is not quoted in those sections. Though the article wants to make that implication, it declines to extend the implication to other campaigns, which also have nothing to do with the negotiation. If it wants to extend beyond the negotiation, why doesn't it extend further?
(-Last one, but is aside from the content of the article itself: it is very unusual for employers or unions to discuss interior details of negotiations in the media. That the workers have done so is questionable, I think, and would be equally questionable if an employer did it, because it puts good faith bargaining at risk.)

This is just an example of how I tend to approach newspaper articles in general and better practice news literacy.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
1). Saying "management acquiesced to the initial demands" is incorrect. Shakir proposed raising the annual salary of field organizers from $36k to $44k and adding an additional workday, but that wouldn't have solved the actual issue where working 60+ hours of week resulted in earning less than $15 an hour
It was $36k to $42k. Given that the employees stated:
The draft letter estimated that field organizers were working 60 hours per week at minimum, dropping their average hourly pay to less than $13.
We can thus extrapolate the expected working weeks like so: $36,000/($13/h * 60h/w) = 46 weeks. So field organizers work 46 weeks out of the year, supposedly. Let's plug this into the $42k number Shakir proposed: $42,000/($15/h * x) = 46 weeks, solve for x which is hours/week. It is 61 actually. It would've covered it fine, I think what stopped the agreement was the healthcare issue. Maybe they just wanted more. Let's look at their counterproposal:

$46,800 per year at 60h/w for 46w looks like this. $46,800/(x * 60h/w) = 46w. x is $/h and it's $17.

Let me rewrite this headline so it's accurate: "Labor dispute in Bernie Sanders campaign as workers reject proposal of $15/hour minus some healthcare benefits for $17/h with full healthcare benefits"

2). It wasn't the WaPo who sold the situation that way. It was, specifically, workers in the Bernie campaign.
It absolutely was WaPo who sold the situation that way.
Labor fight roils Bernie Sanders campaign, as workers demand the $15 hourly pay the candidate has proposed for employees nationwide
This was the headline. Reading this you wouldn't know if they refused to give $15 or if they're trying to resolve a miscalculation or the union is just asking for more in the way unions do. I am not so naive as to think the writer of this headline didn't know exactly what the effect these words would've had on public perception. That this thread title also mentioned $15/h and now dropped it only convinces me this was the case.
A review of emails, instant messages and other documents obtained by The Post show that the conflict dates back to at least May and remains unresolved. The documents were provided to The Post on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the private talks.
Did we see these emails? Did we see the docs? The chat logs? Are we privy to the details of the negotiations and the specific grievances? Or are we hinging all our speculations on WaPo's editorializing? I've had to reverse engineer a lot of numbers just to get some clue as to what's going on.

3). It isn't only anti-Bernie people selectively reading the WaPo piece as painting some horrible act of hypocrisy. If you actually read it, it gives context that makes the Bernie campaign look good in some ways:
I'm not going to pretend people who're pro-Bernie or anti-Bernie actually care about context. If they did, people wouldn't have had to try to spell out the situation. First Tukarrs tried to, then I tried to. I've skimmed through more than my share of comment sections while digging into this. There are roughly two groups: "Sanders is a hypocrite" conservatives/liberals and "Sanders did nothing wrong/this is the point of unions" Bernie supporters. There's only a few voices out there trying to dig into the nitty gritty of the negotiations but this is not what the general public actually cares about. The headline sets the tone and I don't believe a writer at WaPo would fail to understand this.


I can't believe I spent the last 2 hours doing accounting for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Bernie you owe me $34.
 

Zelas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,020
It was $36k to $42k. Given that the employees stated:
We can thus extrapolate the expected working weeks like so: $36,000/($13/h * 60h/w) = 46 weeks. So field organizers work 46 weeks out of the year, supposedly. Let's plug this into the $42k number Shakir proposed: $42,000/($15/h * x) = 46 weeks, solve for x which is hours/week. It is 61 actually. It would've covered it fine, I think what stopped the agreement was the healthcare issue. Maybe they just wanted more. Let's look at their counterproposal:

$46,800 per year at 60h/w for 46w looks like this. $46,800/(x * 60h/w) = 46w. x is $/h and it's $17.

Let me rewrite this headline so it's accurate: "Labor dispute in Bernie Sanders campaign as workers reject proposal of $15/hour minus some healthcare benefits for $17/h with full healthcare benefits"
The disingenuous line likely refers to your claim he acquiesced so the math is besides the point. Sending a counter proposal isnt acquiescing.


I'd expect a statement like that from someone who loves forcing people into arbitration and NDAs.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Conservatives on twitter be like:
362y7m.jpg
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I think it's actually very sad that he criticized the union for going public when using the media as leverage is a time-honored tactic of labor negotiations.
Criticizing their underlings for going public with disputes preferably kept behind closed doors is a time honored tradition of Democrats.

Although with Bernie not being a Democrat it's strange why he would respect this tradition of theirs.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,583
We can thus extrapolate the expected working weeks like so: $36,000/($13/h * 60h/w) = 46 weeks. So field organizers work 46 weeks out of the year, supposedly. Let's plug this into the $42k number Shakir proposed: $42,000/($15/h * x) = 46 weeks, solve for x which is hours/week. It is 61 actually. It would've covered it fine, I think what stopped the agreement was the healthcare issue. Maybe they just wanted more. Let's look at their counterproposal:

$46,800 per year at 60h/w for 46w looks like this. $46,800/(x * 60h/w) = 46w. x is $/h and it's $17.

Let me rewrite this headline so it's accurate: "Labor dispute in Bernie Sanders campaign as workers reject proposal of $15/hour minus some healthcare benefits for $17/h with full healthcare benefits"

The union draft said workers were making less than $13 an hour, were working 60 hour work weeks minimum, and the latest counter-proposal also makes it seem unlikely to me that the $42k number would have been enough to reach the $15/h mark.

I appreciate the effort, but that is a lot of math without the benefit of concrete numbers. :P Perhaps we can agree on the following:

1) $42k was a very likely a solid figure, even keeping in mind the union's stated issues

2) it's cool to see a campaign's management being responsive to wage demands in the first place

Also, remember: the core of the WaPo piece wasn't that the Bernie campaign was rejecting worker efforts to get to $15/h. It was a description of stumbles, tensions, and negotiations, put in the context of Bernie's stated ideals and the overall uniqueness of a presidential campaign with a union.

It absolutely was WaPo who sold the situation that way.'

No, as I said in that post, "is Bernie falling short of his ideals?" was certainly an element of the story. As it should have been.

It never took the step of using dramatic terms to paint a clear picture of hypocrisy, though. Again, that was the campaign workers:

/ / A draft letter union members earlier had prepared to send Shakir as soon as this week said that the field organizers "cannot be expected to build the largest grassroots organizing program in American history while making poverty wages. Given our campaign's commitment to fighting for a living wage of at least $15.00 an hour, we believe it is only fair that the campaign would carry through this commitment to its own field team."

The draft letter estimated that field organizers were working 60 hours per week at minimum, dropping their average hourly pay to less than $13. It said that "many field staffers are barely managing to survive financially, which is severely impacting our team's productivity and morale. Some field organizers have already left the campaign as a result."

. . .

A third said he supported the demands for higher wages "because I need to be able to feed myself." A fourth quoted a line Sanders often uses in speeches, writing, "As you know, real change never takes place from the top on down, it always takes place from the bottom on up." / /



Think about the difference between calling something "racially charged" and calling something "racist" (edit: thinking about it for more than one second, this is a bad example, and I request pretending that I used a better one). Similarish thing here: for me, the WaPo piece described the significant strides of a unique campaign that was nonetheless struggling to live out the principles it espouses. It seemed less about gross hypocrisy than about good faith stumbles, which is what made it interesting seeing as ooo hypocrisy!! angles are boring 99% of the time.

I'm not going to pretend people who're pro-Bernie or anti-Bernie actually care about context. If they did, people wouldn't have had to try to spell out the situation. First Tukarrs tried to, then I tried to. I've skimmed through more than my share of comment sections while digging into this. There are roughly two groups: "Sanders is a hypocrite" conservatives/liberals and "Sanders did nothing wrong/this is the point of unions" Bernie supporters. There's only a few voices out there trying to dig into the nitty gritty of the negotiations but this is not what the general public actually cares about. The headline sets the tone and I don't believe a writer at WaPo would fail to understand this.

The headline was fine.

Embrace it. Drink from it. A presidential campaign roiling from labor conflict is not a common enough phenomenon.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
The union didn't go public though. They never signed off on the story.

But please keep reaching. You might get something eventually.

Even better - brave union members went against what their leadership wanted to keep things quiet, and as a result, Bernie sounded like every boss involved in union negotiations complaining members of the union are having the temerity to talk to the press.
 

Chindogg

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,241
East Lansing, MI
Even better - brave union members went against what their leadership wanted to keep things quiet, and as a result, Bernie sounded like every boss involved in union negotiations complaining members of the union are having the temerity to talk to the press.

I guess that's a story if you want to spin it that way. It's a stretch but sure keep that headcanon going.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
I guess that's a story if you want to spin it that way. It's a stretch but sure keep that headcanon going.

Why didn't Bernie say, "well, I agree we haven't got this done quick enough and I appreciate the people in my campaign being brave enough to let other people know," as opposed to, "why are they talking to the media, like snitches?"
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,830
It's actually interesting that people are taking quotes from a self identified #NeverBernie account.


Sanders said the campaign will limit the number of hours staffers work to 42 or 43 each week to ensure they're making the equivalent of $15 an hour.

It's an issue Sanders said the campaign tried to address in a proposal it offered to union leaders, though it was rejected.


What's interesting about the article is that Sanders had another proposal as an alternative to raising the rate to 42k/year. Capping it at 43ish hours per week which was rejected by the union. They want the extra hours and they want more benefits, which is perfectly reasonable.

But it shows that Bernie is absolutely willing to stick to his principles which is baseline of 15/hr and employer insurance.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,583
What's interesting about the article is that Sanders had another proposal as an alternative to raising the rate to 42k/year. Capping it at 43ish hours per week which was rejected by the union. They want the extra hours and they want more benefits, which is perfectly reasonable.

The Des Moines piece doesn't make it clear, but I believe those statements are referring to different things. The proposal that was rejected was the 42k/year one; capping work weeks to ~43 hours is the current plan of action.
 

Deleted member 1445

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,140
All well and good, but this is overblown criticism, on a topic that no other presidential candidate reaches even in the worst case scenario. Sanders' response here, yeah, lame -- still no one better on this topic out there.

So if you're criticizing this, this should still be the topic that would make you vote _for_ Sanders, not against. Unless you're against unions altogether, in which case, if you're not clear about that fact, all you're doing is trolling.