Feds Charge Wal-Mart With Labor Violations; Morose Liberals Too Busy Hating Obama To Notice
Remember when Obama was going to singlehandedly fix everything that was wrong with America, with socialism? And everyone would feel a great awakening of consciousness, and all our old hatreds would vanish, and we'd all become One in a vast field of organic fair-trade ironic mustaches? That didn't happen, but at least the National Labor Relations Board is finally charging Wal-Mart with violating labor laws!
ABC News dot com via AP:
The National Labor Relations Board says Wal-Mart illegally fired, disciplined or threatened more than 60 employees in 14 states for participating in legally protected activities to complain about wages and working conditions at the nation's largest retailer.
We'd wager that probably a lot more than 60 employees got a non-zero amount of Wal-Mart's shaft, but you take what you can get. As an American worker, you are allowed to do certain, specific things to advocate for yourself at your job without your employer retaliating, which makes this problematic for Wal-Mart:
The complaint alleges that In November 2012, Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar went on CBS News and said there would be "consequences" for workers who engaged in strikes and protests ahead of Black Friday, the big shopping day after Thanksgiving. Similar comments were made to employees at Wal-Mart stores in California and Texas, the complaint said.
To everyone who has forgotten why they voted for Obama: THIS! THIS IS THE REASON! Do you really think Mitt Romney's NLRB would be up Wal-Mart's ass about this? Hell, Romney's entire platform was basically "I will personally execute any worker caught asking for higher wages, better benefits, and a modicum of respect from their employers!" If Romney had been elected president, Senate Democrats would still be filibustering Romney's NLRB nominations of Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, a trained seal, and a scrap of brown yarn.
If you're disappointed that your magical fantasy Obama turned out to be a magical fantasy, buck up. This is not even another "better than the alternative" argument in Barry's favor. Obama has appointed an NLRB that is genuinely trying to put labor and management on equal footing. See also: the time when they tried to stop Boeing from opening a factory in right-to-work South Carolina, which was downright ballsy and even made us feel a little squeamish until they decided to drop the case.
Now, if Obama really does reform the NSA and doesn't stand in the way of marijuana legalization, maybe our friends the Disillusioned Liberal Fantasists will aim their whining at more deserving targets. They probably won't, though; they'll come up with something else to be pissed about, like Obama didn't convert their student loans into artisanal hand-killed baconcakes.
Follow Alex on Twitter, even if you hate Obama since he sold out, but still dig his solo stuff.
[ abcnews.com via AP / NYT / MoJo ]
Re: your third graf. I was never able to entirely forgive Teddy for torpedoing Carter's chance at re-election. Man, can you imagine a world without Reagan?
As you may recall, I disagree with you from time to time about President Obama. I suspect that this may be because that my expectations of his "liberalism" may have been lower than yours were back in 2008. In the present instance, I disagree vehemently with both sentences in your final paragraph. I'll agree that President Obama has turned out to be as much a captive of Wall Street as was President Clinton, but I must point out that it could still be much, much worse. Much. Worse.
Incidentally, I find it quite easy to believe that a McCain or Rmoney appointed NLRB would simply ignore these Walmart "isolated instances".
I voted for President Obama both times, and I have zero regrets, both because I think he is a decent man and because the alternatives were so much worse. I don't, however, think that he should be immunized from criticism from the left, particularly regarding things which -- if done by a Republican President -- would provoke howls of outrage. I'm generally in favor of pragmatic partisan support, but there is a distinction between that and rank hypocrisy.
The eventual point of this remark is that, while I may disagree with you, and sometimes think you go a little over the top, you don't deserve to be called names for expressing your opinion. Of course, this observation may be undercut by the fact that I am a straight white male fucking douchebag (ask anybody I know), but hey.