Good for Merkley. Really.

And I should say, good for Novick as well--since he refused to cross the same line for the same event. Kudos to both candidates!

BCM with the same debunked phoney Riley poll.

Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jan 30, 2008 5:57:06 PM

No he hasn't. Merkley refusing to cross a picket line to be at an event is not a secondary boycott violation of the NLRA.

"Are you sure, joe? Novick's website says he went to the event at the Hilton."

Yes, I'm sure.

"same debunked phoney Riley poll."

By whom? On what grounds? I don't even know what "phoney" means in this context. Made up? Are you asserting he didn't actually conduct a survey?

Whatever one might say about Riley's methods, they're consistent. And thus a drop in favor for Merkley from August to December would tend to have internal consistency. And if you're planning to try the "too many days" argument, please accompany it with the events during those "extra" days that potentially changed respondent sentiment.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 30, 2008 9:54:29 PM

If true then I agree that props all around are in order. Fair is fair. And besides, given his track record it seems more plausible that Steve would honor the picket line than break it.

"Yeah, and at a time when so many people had to deal with snow at their home or on their commute today, what does that really matter?"

I dunno, what does today's commute have to do with anything? You're free to decide the impact for yourself, but you're confusing predictive impact with reflective impact. The O's mistake was in assuming that point in time surveys necessarily predict future behavior. However, when you compare two point in time surveys done the same way, you can pretty safely analyze the trends from Point A to Point B. That's one of the things polling is very good at.

I'm certainly not worried about the polls--especially when they show Merkley gaining no traction through 2007--I'm merely responding to the notion that the analysis on his comparative performance was "phoney" or had been "debunked."

"If true then I agree that props all around are in order."

Unless they misunderstand what event is being referred to in this column, I'm assured by the campaign that Novick indeed respected the picket.

"Makes more sense than jargon like "you're confusing predictive impact with reflective impact. ""

That's not jargon, that's English. Are you saying you don't know what "predictive" and "reflective" mean? I gave you more credit than that. OK, then, how about "Polls aren't designed to predict the future, they are designed to reflect the past?" And that's why you would care about them this far off--not to find out where they will be, but where they have been.

Hey, I fixed the italics! Woot!

It was debunked on your own website back in Dec. when Frohnmayer newly adopted party hired to Riley to create this poll.

It has as much credibility as an Amyway brochure.

To amplify what checkyourfacts said:

A secondary boycott is a boycott of a business or person who has dealings with an employer that is being struck (and I think also boycotted).

So let's say a hotel being struck deals with a non-union linens company whose employees cross picket lines to make deliveries. Efforts to persuade those workers not to cross the lines would not be a secondary boycott. Efforts to persuade the public not to do business with the linen company unless it started honoring the picket lines would be one.

So, as checkyourfacts says, asking potential guests not to stay at the Hilton is not a secondary boycott. But asking others not to have dealings with persons who became guests despite the request would be one.

It was debunked on your own website back in Dec. when Frohnmayer newly adopted party hired to Riley to create this poll.

Uh, Mitch, I looked at the link you cited, and I think it would be fairer to say that the poll was discussed, analyzed, and even argued about, but hardly debunked.

For example, the flat earth theory has been debunked. This poll is clearly controversial (for obvious reasons), but it is a misuse of the word to claim that it is debunked.

Posted by: LGJ | Jan 31, 2008 12:55:24 AM Hey let's get back to the basics. I think it's about time UniteHere has become active in Portland. These huge globalized corporations need to be held accountable by the workers and the community. It sounds like the members at the Hilton are gonna take care of that. KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!

Hear, hear!

You'd think some folks care more about maligning Merkley than they do the trials and tribulations of regular working stiffs just trying to earn a decent living.

Priorites, people!!

Novick, Merckley, and other candidates were among those demonstrating against for the Portland Public Schools custodians.

Hey Robert, it's M-e-r-k-l-e-y.

Probably picking a nit here. But...

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

I see a number of Merkley people trying to raise doubts in that thread Mitch, but no debunking. I eagerly look forward to seeing the mad spin job on another bad poll for Merkley out today...

frankly I've seen little in Blue Oregon that can be objectively characterized as demonstrating the values and actions which would actually reverse this abysmal situation.

Observer Dude. Submit a guest post.

The boys are always looking for new material, and if you've got some insight regarding the betterment of the discourse on Blue Oregon, I'm sure it will be welcome.

why yes jack, that's the one. You're spinning away from the fact that what was billed by the pundits and even Merkley's negotiator Charlie Ringo as a race with only one "realistic" candidate, actually turns out to be completely wide open. This was supposed to be a walkover victory for him, a race where Novick simply can't compete. Yet where both men are known best, Novick actually appears favored, much less unrealistic. .

Sorry if you thought I was going to talk about how Novick is winning. But in the expectations game, it couldn't be clearer that Merkley is losing--he's got a full fledged primary fight on his hands. Maybe he should finally start focusing on the job at hand?

Eryn, you're doing great work on this campaign on behalf of the workers. Keep it up!

I have to agree with Jack here. The very recent (01/18/08) poll done by SurveyUSA had a somewhat sloppy margin of error at 4.3% - something in the range of 3% would be preferable and more inline with the tight tolerances of the Big Dogs in the polling biz. This Riley poll has an uber-sloppy margin of error at 7%.

Sloppy margins of error aside, SurveyUSA's poll unequivocably showed Obama besting Clinton in their respective heats with each of the four Republicans. Granted, SUSA didn't pit Obama and Clinton directly against each other, but Riley's poll claims a sizable advantage for Clinton which simply isn't believable, particularly at 7% margins!

Frankly, I think that LT's poll tells us a great deal more than this Riley poll. I mean think about this for a second... with a massive 7% margin of error one could add 7 to Goberman and subtract 7 from Novick and come up with Goberman out-polling Novick by a 9% to 5% margin. ROFL!!!

Fellas, you shouldn't dabble in areas where you don't really know what you're saying. The idea that a larger MoE represents "sloppiness" is just bizarre, and reflects a misunderstanding of what the margin says. A larger MoE simply reflects a smaller sample size--and a larger confidence interval, between which you can be assured the effect is not random. There is nothing "sloppy" about a 7 point MoE; it simply means the range between two candidates is 14 as opposed to 9 (as it would be with a 4.5 MoE). It's false to say that Mapes calls it "shoddy;" what he does is echo the high undecided voter rate, and the smaller sample size. Instead of the ratio between them being Novick +12 to Merkley +6 (as it would with a so-called "non-sloppy" 4.5 MoE), the range in the Riley Poll is Novick +17 to Merkley + 9.

And that right there is Merkley's problem: at VERY BEST, Merkley's not even up 10 points on a guy his debate negotiator says isn't a realistic candidate--and most people don't even have an opinion. That is not what a presumptive walkover candidate looks like.

As for Kevin's analysis-- Again, to cast MoE as some kind of legitimacy litmus test, as opposed to a measure of precision, suggests misunderstanding of what MoE actually is. It's like saying that directions to a building "between 3rd and 5th Streets" are good directions, while "between 1st and 7th Streets" is totally useless and noninformative. Your scope is wider, is all. Adjust your conclusions appropriately.

And he commits a couple of cardinal errors in comparing Riley to SUSA. First of all, SUSA is registered voters; Riley uses a much tighter likely voter screen. We're in the cusp area right now, between when the former is recommended and when the latter gives a better perception of where the race is.

Secondly, he tries to compare a poll taken before results in Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina, to one taken mostly after Michigan, mostly after Nevada, and mostly BEFORE South Carolina. Unlike the Riley poll in December which was "debunked" by folks like Mitch because of a 14-day polling window that nonetheless contained no notable Senate race events, happenings on the ground between SUSA and Riley in this case could certainly have an impact on the latter.

Finally, it's absurd to try to shoehorn a comparison between general head to heads, and a primary test. For one thing, in the primary there are multiple Democratic candidates. In the general there's only one--plus there's a Republican. Edwards and Kucinich draw an unknown number of votes away from both Clinton and Obama, in unknown patterns. Edwards wasn't even a factor in SUSA's polling, as we know.

And that's another thing: Kevin bitched to high heaven about how awful SUSA was to not ask about Edwards. Now that VERY SAME POLL is regarded as a useful measuring stick by Kevin? I see.

"Keep on topic," I didn't bring up Riley polling; someone else did, and I corrected the record on Mitch's behalf, since he was trying to indict the results without any evidence as to why.

Oh, and if you actually GO to the SUSA survey, you'll see Kevin's wrong anyway--Obama does only marginally better than Hillary in Oregon against the main Republicans...and it's within the margin of error.

When is Blue Oregon expected to endorse the Merkley?

BlueOregon doesn't do endorsements, though our individual contributors are welcome to do so.

Among our editors: I'm working with Merkley, Alworth is supporting him, and Burr is supporting Novick. Most of our contributors haven't taken a position either way.

No, BCM, there's nothing tacit about it. My "endorsement" of Jeff Merkley (like that matters) is quite explicit. Jeff Alworth's as well. Same for Charlie Burr's endorsement of Steve Novick.

Presumably, contributor Jon Isaacs (who is Merkley's campaign manager) has "endorsed" Merkley. Contributor Leslie Carlson (who is a Novick public relations staffer) has presumably "endorsed" Novick.

Most of our contributors joined us long before either Merkley or Novick had entered the race. They're welcome to support, or oppose, anyone they like.

But BlueOregon is just a bunch of pixels on a screen, bytes on a server. "It" can't endorse anyone. As we wrote on the very first day:

We expect our contributors to individually motivate our readers to action - but BlueOregon itself won't collectively endorse candidates, stage protests, or even go out for donuts.

I know that makes us different than other blogs, but hey, we seem to be doing something right.

If you don't like it here, why do you hang out here? I don't get the motivation to stand around and piss in the pool.

Kurt,

UNITE-HERE was a merger of two unions with those names, UNITE (Union of Needle, Industrial and Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees) in 2004. UNITE was the result of an earlier merger in 1996 between ACTWU (Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union) and the ILGWU (International Ladies Garment Workers Union -- one of the great historical clothing workers' unions, famous for organizing in response to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire among other things). ACTWU in turn was the product of a still earlier merger, hence "Amalgamated." So it was only "several textile unions" if we measure over a period of decades, but only one in 2004.

The current UNITE-HERE VP who heads the HERE side (former pres. of HERE before the merger) is a guy named John Wilhelm, who under the tutelage of an older organizer named Vincent Sirabella in New Haven and at Yale University developed a style of organizing that is not only aggressive, but built on intense rank & file involvement & direction, & centering on a demand for respect as the bedrock of all other negotiations. The HERE locals in New Haven were hard-fighting, inspiring and successful when I was there in the 1980s.

You come close to portraying an outside agitator theory of what is happening at the Hilton. What Willamette Week actually reports is that UNITE-HERE national leadership replaced a previous Local 9 "representative," almost certainly a hired staffer (local presidents typically being elected from membership), with a number of new organizers. The president of SF Local 2 (which has fought some hard fights of its own in recent years) has not become the president of Local 9, but is "overseeing negotiations" according to Willamette Week.

The way Eryn writes about it and several other commenters describe it, and Willamette Week, it sounds very similar to what I saw in New Haven. Creating this kind of union, based on fundamental ideas of demanding respect and of workers controlling their own choices of how to proceed, just can't be done simply by someone parachuting in from outside. Workers just don't develop the necessary internal solidarity that way.

What Willamette Week describes is a longer term process, in which organizers work with workers who develop their own leadership from inside. WW mentions the local creating 10 union steward positions for about 275 members, call it 1 to 30. Those stewards know everyone they represent, who in return know the stewards and have direct access to them. These are rank & file leadership positions that create a structure of accountability and ownership within a local.

Eryn Stack, according to WW, is coordinating the boycott apparently as paid staff (maybe she will correct if this is wrong). Again, this is development of internal leadership from within the local rank & file, in this case bringing a rank & file leader onto staff. Again, this is familiar as a way UNITE-HERE works. The people in similar positions who I knew in New Haven were just amazing as organizers & motivators, because they were grounded in the union membership & the community.

And this is the kind of thing that spreads. In New Haven, it moved from Local 217 (hotels & restaurants around town) who helped energize and develop strong internal leadership, solidarity & democracy in Local 35 (Yale blue collar workers) who in turn after about a decade put up some big resources to help the Yale clerical and technical workers form Local 34, and then going out in solidarity with Local 34 when the university admin forced a 10 week strike by bad-faith bargaining. It would not surprise me at all to see some sort of similar spill-over effect from what is going on in Local 9.

Good for Jeff for supporting Local 9 despite pressures, & good for Local 9 for making it important and significant and worthwhile for him to do so. Ultimately it's their solidarity that creates the wider solidarity.

Meant to put the Willamette Week article link in above, sorry, here it is now.

>Vincent Sirabella

Oh, man, you are giving me flashbacks. He fronted the union (I want to say Local 35) that represented the cafeteria and janitorial workers at Yale when I was there in the mid-late 70s. They went out on a lengthy strike that tied the University in knots for months.

I still have one of the t-shirts.

Stephanie, Yep, it was & is Local 35. As part of a grad student union support network in 1988 I wrote the historical section on Local 35 for a "white paper" we issued on why Yale had forced strikes in every contract negotiation beginning with 1968 up to 1988. This was part of an ultimately successful campaign by Locals 34 & 35 to organize student and community support ahead of a strike to force Yale admin to settle a decent contract without a strike. The pattern in the 10 week strike in 1984 was that for about the first 4 or 5 weeks most undergrads were / wanted to be neutral, but that after that it became increasingly apparent that it was the Admin that was preventing a settlement. In 1988 the seniors had been first-years in 1984 and they really didn't want to have their senior year disrupted too, and the unions did a brilliant job of creating a student support network and using it to educate students about the issues.

This kind of tactical creativity and connecting workplace struggles outward into the wider community to press for fair bargaining again seems to be visible in how Local 9 is doing things at the Portland Hilton.

Anyway, in the course of researching my piece of the "white paper" I learned a lot about the origins of Local 35, how it came to join HERE, about Vincent Sirabella & John Wilhelm, & about Yale's long history (a stupidly self-destructive one) of hiring union-busting law firms to advise them on labor-management relations, forcing strikes, and losing them on balance.

Was David Montgomery at Yale yet when you were there?

Do you ever go up Hawthorne St in SE Portland? There's a clothing store there called Local 34 that I've always wondered about, although it is just occurring to me that it probably is on the corner of Hawthorne & SE 34th. Light dawns on Marblehead. Oh well.

<h2>cheers</h2>