Listen:
MP3 One Segment
RealAudio
1. One of the principal issues in the 2000 campaign has been “education.” In California, a ballot initiative was placed before voters that offered to pay families to send children to private school. This voucher initiative, “Proposition 38,” was the brainchild of Tim Draper, a California Republican. (The San Jose Mercury News; 10/19/2000; p.1A.) Although Mr. Emory does not impugn Draper’s character, it is important to note that (appearances to the contrary notwithstanding) Draper is the heir to a legacy that is the opposite of the image projected in the article about Proposition 38.
2. The article stresses Draper’s alleged enthusiasm for multi-culturalism, the fabled “melting pot” and a “level playing field” for all. (Ibid.; p. 22A.)
3. Excerpting FTR-102, the broadcast points out that the Draper family has a deep historical involvement with fascism and doctrinaire racism. Draper’s grandfather, William H. Draper Jr., was heavily involved with promoting investment in Germany between the World Wars. (The Splendid Blonde Beast: Money, Law and Genocide in the 20th Century; Christopher Simpson; softcover edition Common Courage Press; copyright 1995.)
4. W.H. Draper Jr.‘s work on behalf of Germany was done while working for a subsidiary of the investment firm of Dillon, Read & Company. (Idem.)
5. After the war, Draper (as a brigadier general) was one of the principal figures in charge of the economic reconstruction of Germany. (Idem.)
6. In that capacity, he saw to it that the same industrialists and financiers who had backed Hitler were retained in positions of economic responsibility in the “new” Germany. (Idem.)
7. Next, the program discusses the Pioneer Fund, a pro-eugenics organization that was a major influence on the eugenics thinking and legislation of that period. (The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and German National Socialism; Stefan Kuhl; hardcover copyright 1994; Oxford University Press.)
8. Wyckliffe Draper (the cousin of William H. Draper Jr.) was the principal financial backer of the Pioneer Fund. (Idem.) As noted in other programs, American eugenicists wielded a profound influence on their German colleagues and, in turn, the development of the Third Reich’s racial legislation.
9. The Pioneer Fund was a major influence on the racist bestseller The Bell Curve.
(“The Funding of the Science,” by Barry Mehler; The Searchlight; 7/1998.)
10. The broadcast concludes with a look at the collaboration of William H. Draper Jr. and George H.W. Bush in formulating a policy of “population control” in the Third World. (Emerging Viruses–AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?; Dr. Leonard Horowitz; hardcover copyright 1996; Tetrahedron.)
Uncle Sam and The Swastika
So the guy that’s currently trying to break up California is the grandson of Pioneer Fund founder and ardent segregationist Wycliffe Draper? Huh.
Woah, large numbers of well paid workers aren’t jumping at the chance to create a wealthy techno-enclave? Bizarre:
Muddled scheming usually works in politics, and it seems to be resonating with parts of the state, but not Silicon Valley. What’s going wrong this time? Could it be too muddled:
It might seem like there’s no such thing as a too-muddled argument in America politics, but that was a pretty confusing mess of arguments put forth by Draper. The central idea behind his argument — the idea that dividing states up to create “competitive” governments that compete for services improves life for everyone — just doesn’t make any sense. Why? Because Moving to a new state isn’t some casual transaction. Sure, the wealthy might be able to afford to do, but for the rest of us any tweaks in states services probably isn’t going to make moving worth it. It’s not a real competition.
Now, if states behaved like business and actually went out of their way to recruit individuals to their states, including paying the costs of the relocation and other guaranteed benefits or subsidies, well that could be a kind of competitive government situation. But, of course, states aren’t about to start recruiting individual people with compensation packages because that would be absurd. So it’ll be interesting to see if Draper ends up unmuddling this mess, or just remuddles it.
The future states of Droughtistan (Droughtistan 1–6), are one step closer to becoming a reality. The drought is here. Now a vote is required:
Just a heads up everyone, the Bizarro League is probably going to getting some new members soon:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Here’s a story about labor organizing in the US worth keeping an eye on: A new ‘union incubator’ backed by venture-capitalist has just popped up. On its own that would be a remarkable story. But it’s all the more remarkable when you learn the identities of some of these venture capitalists.
The new company, Unit of Work, promises address the pathetically low rates of union member in the US workforce, with just over 6% of private sector workers in the US being a member of a union in 2022. The company’s goal is literally the creation of new unions from non-unionized workforces. Ok, actually, the company’s goal is a profitable payout for those venture capitalists, but it’s working from a business model that achieves that payout by creating as many new dues-paying union members as it can as quickly as possible. Unit of Work provides free consulting services, software, and whatever other guidance is required for the creation of those new unions. Once the union is created, the union can then choose to continue paying Unit of Work monthly fees for the various services involved with running a union.
But that’s just the initial phase of the business model. The second phase is the IPO, when the initial investors cash out their shares. So who would those new investors be? The unions themselves. Yep, the newly created unions will eventually buy out the private investors. That’s the business model. At least the initial business model. The business model pre-IPO. The post-IPO business model is a little less clear. Will the union-owned business continue trying to turn a profit and expand to new unions? Will it instead just run in non-profit mode with lower fees? Who knows. It will be up to the union owners at that point. The venture capitalists will be out of the picture by that point. Unit of Work is just a temporarily for-profit enterprise. Eventually it will be run by and for the unions themselves. At least that’s the pitch we’re getting.
So who are the investors behind this? Well, the founder, Jamie Earl White, appears to have a genuine labor true-believer. Similarly, Roy Bahat — head of Bloomberg Beta, the venture arm of billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s media empire — also has a track record of voicing support for unions, in particular in the start-up space.
But then we get to the other known venture capitalist to get on board with this new company: Tim Draper, a staunch opponent of public-sector unions. Recall how Draper was the financier behind an effort to split California into six states, which is just one of a number of initiatives he’s backed to ‘shake things up’. And Draper’s grandfather, William H. Draper Jr., was deeply involved in both the inter-war industrial investments in Germany and the post-war building of the country. William’s cousin, Wyckliff, was the chief financial backer of the eugenicist Pioneer Fund. Tim Draper is openly saying he supports the goals of Unit of Work, in part, because he views it as a means of setting up decentralized unions that aren’t affiliated with larger national unions. Keep in mind that the corporate intelligence potential of the company at thwarting unionization efforts — by learning about them ahead of time and learning who is involved in the organizing — could be pretty invaluable for those who ultimately want to oppose unionization efforts.
So have any new unions been created yet? Yep, two so far. But there’s obviously a huge potential market for growth given the absurdly low unionization rates in the US. Will more non-unionized workforces find Unit of Work’s services tempting to use for their unionization drives? We’ll see. For-profit union-organizing isn’t the kind of service one normally associates with venture capitalism:
“Unit’s business model works like this: The startup’s organizers provide free consulting to groups of workers organizing unions within their own workplaces — helping them build support to win elections, advising them on strategy in contract-bargaining sessions, guiding them through paperwork filings and around legal obstacles. Once a contract is in place, members of the new union can decide to pay Unit a monthly fee — similar to traditional union dues — to keep providing support.”
For-profit Union-organization. Is that a thing? It is now, assuming Unit of Work’s business model manages to succeed. Two new unions have indeed been created. But the company is going to need the workforces of a lot of other companies to follow suit and form their own unions for this to become a real workable business model that earns a return for these investors. That’s part of what makes this such a remarkable new business: the level of unionizing would have to increase noticeably across the US for the investors to turn a profit:
And while it sounds like the founder of Unit of Work, Jamie Earl White, is a true believer in the need for labor organizing, it’s the partners in this venture that have so many scratching their heads. Parters/investors. White turned to venture capitalist like Roy Bahat, head of Bloomberg Beta, the venture arm of billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s media empire. And sure, Bahat does voice a lot of concerns about the hallowed out status of the modern labor movement in the US, but he also clearly views this project as a for-profit initiative, similar to the software-as-service model of Salesforce.
Beyond that, Bahat clearly envisions selling off his shares in Unit of Work as part of an IPO. So Unit of Work needs to be a business that appears to have a profitable future in order for the early investors like Bahat to eventually cash out. And that brings us to the unusual plan White has for the cash-out phase: have the newly formed unions themselves buy out the early investors. It’s a fascinating, if confusing, business model. The planned long-term investors are the one group that isn’t necessarily looking to turn a profit: the unions themselves. Sure, the unions would need steady income streams from the union dues to maintain themselves, but they presumably aren’t going to be operating in a profit-maximizing mode once they themselves buy out the investors and become the Unit of Work owners themselves. So it’s a business that starts off in profit-maximizing mode in the sense that it wants to create enough new unions to buy out the initial investors, but once that buyout happens the incentive structure suddenly shifts towards the priorities of the new union-owners:
And then we get to the far more confusing venture capitalist involved: Tim Draper. And as the article reminds us, Tim Draper is no fan of unions. At least not large unions with a national presence. And that appears to be Draper’s angle here: if there’s going to be unions, he’d prefer them to be localized to a single business. That said, it sounds like Unit of Work will facilitate the creation of national union affiliates. That’s going to be something to watch here: What will Draper do if the unions created by Unit of Work start deciding to became affiliates of national unions. That’s like his nightmare scenario:
So it that they’ve devised a business model that, in its early phase, starts off with the goal of expanding the organized labor force as much as possible for the purpose of creating the owners of the company. Future owners who will buy out the initial investors. It’s like a centralized hub for the decentralization of unions. At least that’s how the founders are describing it. We’ll see if that’s how it turns out.
But also keep in mind one of the major unaddressed issues here: so what price per share are these investors hoping to sell their shares during the planned IPO? Like, how would they even begin assessing a price for that? After all, the business model effectively changes after the sale. So how do the new owners assess what is a fair price here? Will unions be expected to borrow money to pay out the investors, with the expectation that future union dues will pay back the loans? What’s the plan here? Because if this all turns out to be a kind of giant scam against workforces on the cusp on unionizing, that’s where the scam gets finalized. In the IPO payout. A payout that should have as high a share price as possible from the perspective of the initial investors. How can these investors make the future revenue streams of Unit of Work look as promising as possible without charging their members exorbitant fees? By continually growing the number of new members with new unions, that’s how. The IPO succeeds because the unions are happy to invest in a thriving union-growing enterprise with strong growth prospects. So what about less-than-best-case scenarios? Who knows, but some sort of ‘union-IPO’ is now slated to be thing, which, if nothing else, is a good thematic fit for a contemporary America run by, and for, its oligarchs.
Each and every day it is incredible to see the stamina of corporate capitalism.
Commodifying everything, even what was once considered worker resistance.
It must be admitted that capitalism as a system sure seems to never die no matter how many stakes are put in it’s heart.
Commodify diseases for insurance reasons and start unions for venture capitalists.
What next?