Rush Limbaugh was thrown for a loss by the NFL players union when NFL Players executive director DeMaurice Smith "made a move to solidify the union against a bid by conservative talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh as part of a group that aims to purchase the St. Louis Rams," according to ESPN.com.
ESPN.com reports that:
In an e-mail to the union's executive committee on Saturday specifically addressing Limbaugh's bid, Smith said, "I've spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred."
Good for Smith and the players union. And those words are difficult for me to write because I have a deep-seated suspicion and dislike for most unions because unions have been a major factor in the decline of the American steel and automobile industries and are a major impediment to improving education.
I have created a Web site that details why the United Auto Workers (UAW) is wrong for The New School and NYU, where I am a part-time faculty member, and why the UAW and unions are wrong for higher education.
As an academic, I'm outraged to be represented by a mechanics' union primarily because the union's mission and goals are totally opposite from those of universities. The union's push for seniority and guaranteed work loads stifle innovation and are antithetical to a teaching meritocracy.
On the other hand, the NFL Players union is doing the right thing by speaking out against the hatemongering, racist entertainer Rush Limbaugh being a partial owner of an NFL team on which over half of its players are African-American.
It would be better for the country if more unions and other organizations, such as church groups and social clubs, spoke out against hate mongering and racism by media bloviators such as Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Perhaps they could moderate the extremism better than the greedy media conglomerates and broadcasters that have abandoned the responsibility of being a public trust and caved into craven commercialism.
It is ironic that a union has taken on the role of speaking out against extremism when the media that distribute the extremist views of the Limbaughs and Becks are not responsible enough to moderate these exclusionary hate mongers.
Go NFL Players union!
Follow Charles Warner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CHWarner
Dave Zirin: My Response to Rush Limbaugh's Rage
Yesterday I was referred to on air as "scum" by Rush Limbaugh. I was called out for challenging his efforts to own an NFL team, saying that Limbaugh's history of racial bombast should count against him.
http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:outsider-demaurice-smith-elected-as-exec-director-of-nflpa&catid=34:nfl-news&Itemid=53
If you REALLY want to talk about innovation, in a realistic sense, it only occurs on the individual level, and is a result of an individual's desire to be creative in a given setting.
So innovation is really creativity. If someone is uncreative, they will not innovate. If they are creative, they will, regardless of whether there are unions or not!
Unions do not advance or inhibit innovation, they protect workers from greedy bosses who would otherwise pay them little and work them to death. This has nothing to do with innovation at all, and everything to do with fairness for the workers.
Cooperation and competition are both good atmosphere's for creative innovation. It is simply dependent on the mindset of the person in a position to creatively innovate!
Every job I've had, I have always sought to innovate to make my job easier. "Hey, why don't I do it like this instead of like that? That'll save some time." Etc.
So let's stop using "innovation" as a catch-phrase to promote Capitalism, or to denounce Unions. It's a b.s. argument that has zero merit, and only serves to undermine the debate. Even though you're not. And anybody who understands the actual meaning and use of the word will know this.
Because if the teacher is out-of-work, then it's fair that they receive 50% of the salary they'd been promised, and actually seems like a compromise from the 100% they would have received.
But if the teacher is simply moved to a different course, then logically there should be no kill-fee, because that teacher is still being paid.
Or am I missing something completely?
So the New School isn't making enough money to take these kinds of risks? And are these courses necessary?
I don't know what you teach off hand, but the purpose of unions is to provide protections for the workers. It is a counterbalance against bad management. I don't know what kind of institution the New School is, if it is state run or private, but have you ever been curious about the ratio of part-time to full-time instructors?
While academia has it's own irvory towers, it is still a business and won't survive if it doesn't hold costs down. One way I have noticed educational systems addressing this is to have low-paid part-time instructors without benefits.
Seniority and gauranteed work loads are germane to the auto industry. Academia uses tenure as a rough form of seniority. I am sure the tenured staff get first pick of the classes to teach, and you manage your department in a certain way.
What happens when your school needs to make cuts and layoffs? How is it determined who goes? Do you have health benefits? What do you do if the New school decides your co-pay is going from $40 to $75 and you will now pay 70% of the premiums? Do you and your staff in the ivory tower currently have a plan to do something about it?
In terms of what happens when a university has to make cuts and layoffs, if there were no union involvement, those cuts would be made in many cases based on merit -- who were the better teachers -- not based on seniority, which has nothing to do with merit. Unions in general and the UAW in particular have no interest in teaching or merit or transferring knowledge to students, their interests are in establishing seniority and getting teachers paid for not teaching, which is wasteful.
I am a moderate democrat and I support Obama 100%. Having said that, I will get some slack because I agree with you about Unions. And after over 21 years of membership in 2 different Unions, I speak from experience. I don't trust them and in many cases I question whether they help or hurt. It is my opinion, sorry if some are offended.
"I have a deep-seated suspicion and dislike for most unions because unions have been a major factor in the decline of the American steel and automobile industries and are a major impediment to improving education."
And then I realized that you are that Right Wing guy who thinks Google is behind everything bad, among a host of other conservative talking points.
Good luck with that.
Well, it certainly didn't take any union to bring media and journalism to its lowest point in history. Nope, nothing but pure, unadulterated corporate conglomeration, rampant greed, and an obsessive fixation on share prices helped pull that one off.
Yay capitalism?
MMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Rushton Hundson Limbaugh
MMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
What goes around, comes around, rush. You thought you were going to be BMOC and finally have a vicarious football career, but what have you got now?
I do believe in education, I believe some unions are useful because there are lessons to be learned from working together. I am a retired member of NTEU and believe me, it is a necessary protection for workers because of so many personalities in management.
I have a son who is a principal in an elementary school and he has some interesting stories to tell about teacher's' unions.
I like you post and look forward to hearing more from you!
I cannot believe the media telling so many evil lies about Rush. HE IS NOT A RACIST! His sidekick is black, and Walter Williams subs for him. I guess that is why we left the MSM, because they left us. We have heard so many lies on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN that we just gave up on them. At least on Fox we get both sides of any story. Moving back to the states 20 years ago from living in Europe, we definitely got Culture shock.
I have two ears, two eyes and a brain that tells me that Rush is a racist, a traitor and an over-paid, druggie, astro-turfer.
If it wasn't for Shep Smith, FOX would be completedly one-sided.