DON’T Shine A Little Light On Me!

Chicago’s Park Hyatt Hotel, facing striking housekeeping workers picketing their building, turned heat lamps on the picketing workers, outdoors, on a 99°F summer day.

It seems to me the owners, unlike Bill Clinton, are intent on building a bridge to the 19th century, when cruel violence against strikers was not uncommon. But a member of the owners’ family, Penny Pritzker, was the finance chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign. Draw your own conclusions.

(H/T Michael Moore.)

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • upyernoz  On Saturday July 23, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    But a member of the owners’ family, Penny Pritzker, was the finance chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign. Draw your own conclusions.

    i’ve seen others bring up the same point elsewhere and my conclusion is it’s not fair.

    first, the idiot who decided to employ heat lamps was probably an on-site manager, rather than a member of the family who owns a majority of the hotel chain’s shares of stock. it is highly probably that no member of the pritzger family had anything to do with the decision, much less endorsed it.

    second, even if someone in the pritzger family was involved, where’s the evidence that penny was? talk about guilt by association!

    third, even if we assume that penny was somehow involved, what exactly does that have to do with the president? is obama responsible for the actions of all of his supporters? i have a hard time believe that either.

    (full disclosure, i am a labor lawyer, who represents labor union’s exclusively. at the beginning of my career i practiced in chicago and had some interaction with margo pritzger (who might be penny’s mother. i can’t keep that family tree straight). in any case, margo was a good friend of my boss, a 90-something year old labor lawyer who had been representing unions since before WW2. my only point is that all the pritzgers are not necessarily anti-union zealots like the koch brothers)

    • Steve  On Saturday July 23, 2011 at 3:23 pm

      Fair enough, ‘noz. That’s one reason I ended with “draw your own conclusions”; as you note, there’s no clear chain of responsibility here.

      I don’t know if it’s fair of me or not, but when I read a couple months back that the Obama campaign planned on raising and spending a billion dollars in the 2012 election, my gut said that this is a bad thing. I don’t know that it’s worse in Obama’s case than in that of any other candidate, but I never miss an opportunity to emphasize that all candidates for high federal office must… not may, but must… have wealthy friends or at least contributors, and I do believe that is a bad thing. There are no 21st-century Abe Lincolns among us.

      If “spending is speech,” then wealthy people have more speech than I do. Some may feel that’s only right and proper. I don’t. If there isn’t some level on which a son of lower-middle-class parents is equal to a child of wealth and privilege, as far as I’m concerned, we may as well scrap the whole thing and start over.

Leave a Reply (NB: I'm not responsible for any ad!)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: