Beauty, the Beasts, the Mayor, the Feds and the Jury
Yesterday, July 31, 2017, jury selection began. Dear reader, I leave to your discretion the identity of the Beasts.
The Beauty is Padma Lashmi, a host of Bravo TV's Top Chef. (I have confessed my shame of watching reality shows, but I don't watch this one.) The Mayor is Marty Walsh, who was a union official until he ran for Mayor of Boston. When Walsh ran for the highest office of the bluest city of a very blue state, local media questioned whether Walsh's union connections would render him unable to negotiate City contracts effectively with unions representing employees of the City.
Walsh will run for re-election in 2018 and at least one person has said he will challenge Walsh, so Walsh may not coast. Media again questioned whether Walsh's previous union status would allow him to deal effectively with this situation, although I am not entirely sure what Walsh was supposed to do. But, sure, blue state media, keep insinuating that a union official should never hold public office. But, I digress.
So, Top Chef was set to film in a Boston hotel with non-union people. Because heaven knows, a relatively low-cost, award winning show like Top Chef can't afford to hire union members. Some Teamsters based in Boston didn't think this was a good idea. They picketed. The Boston hotel, not wanting to be associated with this picket, pulled out of the deal. The show moved on to a restaurant in Milton, another Massachusetts city, but still did not hire union people. So ends the undisputed portion of this story.
Supposedly, several teamsters from Boston picketed in Milton and made very ugly threats, including threats to disfigure the lovely Lashmi. Other allegations include chest and abdomen bumping by the Teamsters of various Top Chef production personnel. IIRC, tire slashing was alleged as well. Milton police got involved. AFAIK, no one was physically hurt. The goal of all the alleged misconduct was getting Top Chef to hire several members of the Teamsters' local.
So, in 2015, the Teamsters allegedly involved were indicted by the feds for extortion--of jobs. (I don't know if Top Chef ever actually hired the Teamsters, so it may have been attempted extortion--of jobs.) Perhaps it is only ignorance on my part, but I never heard the term "extortion" used in connection with seeking very short-term union jobs, no matter what kind of conduct was involved. Sure, if someone did property damage, they might be charged with that. If they hit someone, they might be charged with assault and battery. But I've never heard the attempt of union members trying to get an employer to hire union members characterized as extortion.
Each defendant, if convicted, may get up to twenty years in prison, plus a fine of up to $250,000. One of the teamsters pled guilty. Compared to the potential sentence of the Teamsters who pled innocent, he got a tap (not even a slap) on the wrist.
The US Attorney under whom all this occurred was Carmen M. Ortiz, an Obama appointee whom some readers of this essay may remember from any number of high profile cases, including U.S. v. Swartz. That case was dismissed after defendant Aaron Swartz committed suicide. John Dean, of Watergate fame, opined that Swartz had been "overcharged." The Swartz case was one of several cases in which the conduct of Ortiz was, at best, questionable. In December 2016, Ms. Ortiz announced she would leave the Department of Justice in January 2017, in light of the election victory of a Republican Presidential nominee. The D of J's website gushed.
Comments
And not one GD banker or war criminal
even got prosecuted, let alone jailed. The double standard that is our justice system sucks. Thanks for the interesting story. Don't protest Israel, don't film protests, and don't thug for jobs.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You nailed it, dkmich.
Even if the teamsters did everything of which they are accused, twenty years and a hefty fine is more than some killers get. And at the hands of an appointee of a "comfortable shoes" administration, too.
I guess we can be thankful Ortiz did not drive any of them to suicide. I don't know how she not only lives with herself, but repeats the same behaviors.
Entertainment industry has one of the last
Strong unions.
Reality TV has been doing everything they can to shut down sag/aftra as well as equity.
Most people are unaware sag is on strike right now, and that's why most aaa video games are sucking as far as VA talent goes. The pros are on strike and the scabs are taking us back to the early 90s as far as quality goes, all for the sake of a few more dollars in corporate hands
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Reality shows, which of course, are staged, though not
word for word scripted, proliferated after the writers' strike of a number of years ago. The writers got very, very little as a result of the strike, but the industry got them back anyway. Some on camera "talent" did join the picket lines, but they also crossed the picket lines to film their shows. I don't think joining the picket line made up for crossing it.
I suppose I don't help by watching some of the reality shows. I won't be watching any more of Bravo's, though.
Looking at DOJ's report on Ortiz leaves me puzzled.
What the valedictory cites seems admirable. But they do not mention the Sw3artz case. How many other ignominious acts did they not report as well? Furthermore, having a former union leader as a mayor does not seem to be a problem. If it is a problem, then we should object to each billionaire or corporate CEO entering politics for elected office.
A former union leader as mayor could have a huge
advantage in dealing with unions, but, of course, media never alludes to that possibility. At least not publicly. And they speak as though the only way a Mayor could possibly do right by a city is to be "tough" on those who work for it, rather than by giving them reason to do it proud. Boston is, after all, very much a tourist destination. Indeed, the historic city is itself a national park. Investment bankers got huge bonuses with bail out money after the companies they ran went belly up, but people who work for a successful city like Boston should only be shafted when it's time to negotiate a new contract?
Working people must really have hurt this country very badly for those in positions of power and influence to be so against them. Oh, wait, they built this country, both as slaves and as over-exploited and underpaid laborers. It was cheaper for employers to replace dead workers than to provide safer working conditions, so many died or lost parts of their bodies, just for trying to earn starvation wages. And then, they joined unions.
Massachusetts has given so many economic breaks to those who deign to film there, which accounts for many of the films of recent years set in the state. I guess we can't expect those benefiting from that free tax money to use a tiny percentage to hire union workers who pay taxes in the state. And your federal government puts on its comfortable shoes only to teach labor a lesson!
Sorry for the rant. I get frustrated sometimes.
BTW, Ortiz's wiki details some of her controversial cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz In one of them, the judge reprimanded her strongly for a federal judge dealing with a federal prosecutor.
After the Swartz suicide, people demanded she be fired, but, of course, she wasn't. Instead, she got gushed over. CSMA (Comfortable Shoes, My Ass.)
Thanks for the added information, Henry
I share your views on workers being shafted by employers, even municipalities.
In regard to Ortiz, I am somewhat in the same predicament as those forced to rely upon the Mostly Shit Media. Realistically, unless better educated, we are at their mercy when attempting to form opinions.
Thanks, AE. Imagine how much more lacking we would be
without the internet!
@Alligator Ed
Everyone should anyway object to billionaires and corporate interests entering (edit: any) public office, since they're at best insulated from the rest of us and typically self-interests actively working against the public interest - while union officials (theoretically, at least) stand for fair worker treatment and therefore The People, and are more likely to stand against billionaires and corporate interests taking over public policy and moving into direct governance/law-making.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
If you make that multi-millionaires, rather than billionaires,
you'd disqualify most of the House and Senate.
@HenryAWallace
Lol, thanks, I'll just add them in!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.