barack obama made a bold promise to the culinary workers union in las vegas: if the hotel workers can't get a contract, he's ready to march on the picket line with them. "all we’re asking for is make sure the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are spread evenly across the board," he said. "that if profits are going up for everybody, then those profits are shared with workers. if ceo’s have free healthcare, then workers get free healthcare."
remarkably principled stand. obama is right on the money for this issue. if ceos receive health insurance as part of their compensation package then every employee top to bottom of the organization should receive the same level of benefits.
Interesting point. If the Obamas were truly concerned with equalizing the benefits of CEOs and workers, they could have declined the executive benefit package and opted for the lesser benefits received by the front-line workers. That would have gone a long way toward convincing me of their sincerity.
While you have a point here, not many people have gone as far as refusing benefits on principle. Nurses who are making a good wage could refuse to accept it on the principle that NAs should be better compensated - do you know anyone who has done that? Of course, the higher up and more visible one is in an organization, the more likely such a principled stand will be noticed and maybe make some impact... or the person just might be asked to leave so as not to stir things up.
Anyway, demanding that a presidential candidate (and their close family) have refused benefits on this principle means that NO candidate will measure up... and probably none in the past either. So we have to look to other things to decide who we think would best fill the role (not perfectly but at least better than the other candidates). At least this issue was brought up and addressed as opposed to being completely ignored or considered unproblematic.
jjjoy, LPN
2,801 Posts
While you have a point here, not many people have gone as far as refusing benefits on principle. Nurses who are making a good wage could refuse to accept it on the principle that NAs should be better compensated - do you know anyone who has done that? Of course, the higher up and more visible one is in an organization, the more likely such a principled stand will be noticed and maybe make some impact... or the person just might be asked to leave so as not to stir things up.
Anyway, demanding that a presidential candidate (and their close family) have refused benefits on this principle means that NO candidate will measure up... and probably none in the past either. So we have to look to other things to decide who we think would best fill the role (not perfectly but at least better than the other candidates). At least this issue was brought up and addressed as opposed to being completely ignored or considered unproblematic.