Monthly Archives: July 2014

A Precious Union

Posted on by
Reply

The Metropolitan Opera singers union resumed contract talks on Monday after a two-month hiatus, but union officials said they had little hope of reaching an agreement before a threatened lockout.

And no wonder, with such an awesome sense of entitlement.

“He doesn’t want to help us maintain our instruments,” said chorus member Jean Braham, commenting on the effect [Met General Manager Peter] Gelb’s proposed high-deductible health plan could have on singers’ voices and bodies.

“We are the artists,” Ms Braham said, her voice cracking. “We are the product. The fact that he accepts no responsibility and no accountability is just incredible to me.”

They are your instruments, Ms Braham, not the Met’s. Like any worker, your tools are your own responsibility. And, no, you are not the product. Get over yourself. The entertainment that the Met produces—blending your tools with those of the major singers, those of your company’s dancers, those of the orchestra, those of your company’s stage managers, and the acoustics of the opera house stage and setting are the product.

What’s incredible to me is that your sense of entitlement has become so ingrained that you view all of this as your natural right. How precious can a union worker get?

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to disband the NLRB.

McDonald’s Corp could be treated as a joint employer with its franchisees in labor complaints, according to a National Labor Relations Board legal determination….

The relationship between a franchisee and the parent franchisor varies in the details of the franchise contract. However, the general nature of the reputation is quite limited. The franchisee gets to use the franchisor name and the franchisor’s marketing and accounting assistance, and it gets the franchisor’s market power in holding down the cost of supplies. In return, the franchisee is bound to the franchisor’s rules regarding the use to which the franchise name is put and the nature, quality, and standardization of the product being sold. The franchisee also is required to refrain from activities that would result in denigration of the franchise name.

There’s nothing in there concerning hiring or employment practices, or anything else involving labor decisions, that tie the franchisor to the franchisee. Existing labor law covers the franchisee’s hiring and employment.

The NLRB knows this, of course, which makes its ruling even more pernicious.

Obama’s “Peace Talks”

Posted on by
Reply

This article is triggered by Gerald Seib’s recent piece in The Wall Street Journal.

A White House statement cited by Seib:

The President…reiterated the United States’ serious and growing concern about the rising number of Palestinian civilian deaths and the loss of Israeli lives, as well as the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza[.]

Not a word about the primary cause of those Palestinian deaths, just the outrageous moral equivalence asserted between the terrorists’ assault on Israel and Israel’s defense against that assault, and through that the tacit implication (excuse the redundancy) that those Palestinian civilian deaths are Israel’s doing.

No harm to peace-making by Obama’s Cabinet there.

And this:

Meanwhile, Israel also was squirming over the talks between the US and five international powers and Iran over the Iranian nuclear program. As it became obvious that those talks were moving in the direction of an agreement that would leave Iran with a continuing capacity to enrich uranium, Israeli discomfort grew. When the talks were extended earlier this month for four more months, it grew further. A separate issue, yes, but one that affects the atmosphere.

No, this is not a separate issue; Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the Palestinian Authority’s terror war against Israel are inextricably intertwined. Let’s leave aside the fact that Iran is largely funding and almost exclusively arming the PA (apart from the latter’s primary industry of rocket-making within the Gaza Strip (itself supplied by inputs from Iran)). Iran has as its own goal, to use Iran’s words, of “wiping Israel from the map.” What does the Obama administration, and his Secretary of State (and Seib) think Iran will do with its uranium, enriched to weapons grade? The question answers itself: Iran will attack Iran with nuclear weapons, or supply the weapons to the PA (and/or other terrorist organizations in the region—Hezbollah comes to mind) for the purpose of seeing them used in Israel.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program is as much a threat to Israel’s existence as is the PA’s constant terror attacks. The PA is a client of Iran.

President Barack Obama, and his Cabinet, surely know this. From this, another question raises itself: what is the value—in fact, what is the purpose—of Obama’s “peace talk” efforts as they concern Israel and the Palestinian Authority?

UN Perfidy?

Posted on by
2

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon leveled his strongest criticism yet of Israel’s military operation in Gaza on Monday, accusing Israel of “pummeling” Gazans with “indiscriminate destruction” and warning Israel to fulfill its obligations as an “occupying power” to protect civilians.

Mr Ban stopped short of accusing Israel of targeting civilians, but he said that “every home, every school, every refuge” had become a target.

The UN carefully does not warn the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its obligations as the government of Gaza to protect civilians, to, much more, stop using civilians as shields. The UN carefully does not acknowledge that “‘every home, every school, every refuge’ had become a target” because the PA terrorists had made them so by storing their rockets in these places, had made them so by launching their rockets from these places.

And the UN carefully ignores the fact that it’s been caught—twice—storing the PA’s rockets in UNRWA facilities and then turning them over to the terrorists when discovered.

No, this is all Israel’s fault.

“In the name of humanity, the violence must stop,” Mr Ban said.

In the name of humanity, the terrorists must be stopped.

Taliban and ISIS

Posted on by
Reply

ISIS has expanded the systematic destruction of Iraq’s cultural treasures. In Mosul, the tomb of Jonah, revered by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike, has been “turned…to sand” by ISIS explosives placed so as to achieve the barbarity in one explosion.   The Nabi Younes Mosque which housed the shrine also has been destroyed.

This gang has been systematically destroying all of the shrines and graves in the territory it has seized from Iraq, under the claimed…theory…that it’s unholy to worship at such things or to venerate anyone but Mohammed. On the other hand, they also find it convenient simply to rob from valuable collections of antiquities, such as the Mosul Museum.

How does one discriminate between this barbarian and that one? It isn’t necessary. Both want the same response.