I am very tired of this “‘Merkin exceptionalism” (which does not exist) being used as an excuse not to enact legislation for the good of the people, so that they can be “free” to die with their rights on.

We are NOT “exceptional”, unless that means exceptionaly naive and guillable. We let the corporations walk all over our ass.

Only in ‘Merka

@rfidler:
The USA no longer has a “huge” middle class.  The richest 1% has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.  Which of these (http://zfacts.com/p/728.html) groups would you call “middle”?

The reason countries in South/Central America, China, Africa are worse is because they are, for the most part, dictatorships.  Russia was a dictatorship but once unfettered capitalism was thrust upon them, well, the regular folks there aren’t really that much better off.  All we did was create an oligarchy.

Yes, socialism is easier in a homogeneous society; I would also argue that it is untenable at large scales due to the very human natures you list—-but, as a Christian, I’m allowed to have hope for our better natures winning out and that we can one day learn to love our neighbors, no matter what they look like.

As has been pointed out, the EFCA does not require an open ballot—-it merely makes the choice of ballot that of the workers and not the employer.  Those signing cards are free to indicate that they want a secret ballot.

The treatment of scabs is a very different subject than organizational intimidation.  Scabs only exist if a shop already has a union and they are, by definition, a union-busting tool of management.  It kinda makes sense they’d be the target of intimidation as they are weakening the ONLY tool organized labor has, the strike.

As for my comments with my union:  I was working in what would be an “open shop” so it was not about organizing but rather membership.  My particular union serves a purpose but I felt that my specific profession should not be unionized—-each worker is relatively unique so we could potentially bargain as individuals and do fine.  Assuming the employer was completely honest.  After several years of watching employer/employee relations I realized that although my local employer was OK, the higher up level that writes the contracts and checks was only looking to bottom lines and as uncaring as Wal-Mart of employees no matter what their profession.  So I joined the union.

rfidler—I did not (and do not, for certain) KNOW that the rising youth birth rate is among non-whites—-ao I guess that answers as to whether my comment was racist. Scandanavia is not lily-white anymore, and, yes, I was wrong about thet uS having the widest gap—it is the UK. I said civilized countries—I shouldve said “sortve cicilized” capitalist countries. The gap is widening in China as they become more capitalistic..

Scandanavians have never been a majority here. I loathe the Anglo-Saxob protestant capitalist ethic. but, I wouldnt go so far as to place the blame on one race of people. I’m not that racist.

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the “secret ballot” election.

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the secret ballot eleciton process. That process, also known as a National Labor Relations Board election would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers, not corporate executives, to make that decision.

Re: rfidler

Your comment: “Leave aside corporate goon tactics.”

Why would anyone “leave aside corporate goon tactics”, are you insane…?  This problem is paramount and NEEDS to be stopped.  They are ass-kissin’ flunkies who wouldn’t last a hour in a room with anyone with backbone (but that is why they choose the weaker….isn’t it), bullshitters anonymous is where they belong.

At LEAST you recognize that in fact they ARE…...corporate GOON tactics.  That’s a start.

kdelphi:

I don’t have stats, but I’d venture to say that most Latin American and Caribbean countries and China and Russia have wider rich-poor gaps than we do,and the middle class in those countries is virtually non-existent. I assume you would count them as “civilized.”

I don’t follow your immigration/population replacement argument. Scandinavia was worried about a shrinking population, and you seem to be ok with their solution. Where in the world did you get the idea that the U.S. was in the grip of “baby mania?” Compared to what non-European country? Whites are the slowest-growing pop. group in the U.S. and will soon be under 50%(FINALLY!!! The raping pillaging murdering bastards will see what it’s like to be a minority!) The baby mania you selectively dread is in the Latino and black population. Does that make you a racist?

Been to Denmark and Sweden, but years ago when everyone there was lily white, and prices even then were ridiculously high due to the tax burden.

If capitalism (moneyism) is so great, why do we have the biggest gap between rich and poor in the civilized world? Why do we have much suicide, alcoholicm, prisons, drug addiction,and general misery?

I dont think that Scandanavia is a “qualified” success—it is an undoubted succes, except when their govt fell victim to the HUGE “
succues” of US unregulagted capitalism (moneyism) YOu can be sure haht Scandanavians have enough balls to stop it in the futere—too bad we dont.-and, immigration laws, as you say, have been greatly liberlized in recent years. They were simply getting low on young population to replace themselves! As we can see with the current US “baby mania” (no matter how full the planet is), rectifying that is quickly done.

I lived in Denmark for awhile—cant afford to go back , or I’d be there..I assume that you have been to the countries of which you speak…

louise, louise, louise- did we forget to take our valium today?

Do you mean the Big Guys like George McGovern, the progressive saint, or Barak Obama, the messiah, who oppose the EFCA?

If the Big Guys are so stupid, how did they get all of YOUR money? I’m not defending them by any means, but stupid they definitely are not.

Are you really acquainted with someone who actually wipes someone else’s butt for a living?

You in fact took the trouble to type BIG three times.

Would it make you happy to see the BIG guys beg? I assume so, and therefore I can’t help but conclude that your motivations are as base as the BIG guys’. How are you MORALLY different from them in the power-seeking game? (A non-answer would be “They have all the money” since money is an amoral concept)

The only people I know who don’t raise their own kids are the very rich and the very poor, which more or less puts them in the same boat, don’t you think? And before you say that rich kids are off at private schools while poor kids are in some grubby daycare center, let me refer you to the lines of poor Washington DC moms clamoring for private school vouchers so their kids can get out of the hell-hole known as the DC Public Schools, and remind you that your “progressive” friends there are doing all they can to prevent that from happening, all to protect the NEA. “Who gives a damn about some ghetto kid when a teacher’s job is at stake!”

A general strike would be about as popular and effective as one of Jesse Jackson’s Coca-Cola boycotts.

The fortunate job-holders you mention, those who have a stake in continuing to work for the sake of their kids, still do number about 90% of the willing-to-work. You make it sound like they’re the tiny, lucky minority.

Are you really acquianted with somebody who was FORCED to grovel in front of their employer and actually THANK them for the privilege of working for them? If you mean that metaphorically, as in “I’m really worth a lot more than you’re paying me,” then I think it’s safe to say that 99% of the world’s working population, even the BIG guy, shares that sentiment.

drklassen:
I take your point about “real” socialism and communism having never been tried. But I doubt they ever will, since both posit the absence of greed, envy and self interest- three motivators we all know are here to stay.

Arguably, the U.S. is the most capitalist nation on earth. If the destiny of capitalism is to create a few super rich and a huge number of destitute, how do you account for the huge middle class in the U.S., compared to say, Russia, or China, or most of Latin America, or any African country, all of which claim socialist creds.

I’ll concede that Scandinavian socialism is a qualified success, but I believe that has more to do with their homogenous culture than any other factor. Don’t forget, immigration to Sweden and Norway was highly restricted until fairly recently. Socialism is easy when everyone feels the same way about everything.

I’ll also concede your point that the deck today is tilted in favor of corporations who can put up more raodblocks to organizing than they could before WWII. But as for union intimidation, all you need to do is see how scabs are treated to know that they do in fact have great power over a jobseeker. The treatment of scabs (no, I’m not one, nor ever have been) is all I need to see to know that unions aren’t about helping poor people so much as “I got mine and you’re not going to threaten it.” They’re just like the suits in the front office when it comes to self interest. If the EFCA is only about making it easier to organize, why is it necessary to have an open ballot?

I’m surprised you turned down an offer to organize (and several times to boot!) But maybe I assume too much about your philosophy. Also, for a while longer at least, your vote is still secret, so any feeling of intimidation you might have is moot.

Thanks for the civil discourse. It’s hard, but fun, being a lonely paleo-conservative voice in TruthDig’s sea of progressivism.

We can clarify the whole issue with ONE simple question.

Why have the BIG guys, specifically the BIG guys we just bailed out of the mess THEY created, spent time and money (OUR money) lobbying against Free Choice?

Because they don’t have anything else to do?

Not hardly. Because having demonstrated no matter how abusive, dishonest, greedy and destructive they are, they can get away with it. So since they’ve already broken the bank, why not let them break the backbone as well?

(Remember, they’re to stupid to understand if the backbone is gone, they’ll all fall down.)

Would be nice if the entire working population could go on strike. I’d like to see these creeps try to survive in a world where nothing, from toilet cleaning to window cleaning, would get done unless THEY did it! In a world where they actually had to raise their own kids, drive their own car, wipe their own bottoms. Yeh, would be nice if the BIG guys were forced to see how really LITTLE and DEPENDENT they are!

Course that wont happen. Folks who care about their kids, actually raise their kids all by themselves, will never risk losing the income they work for, if they are fortunate enough to have a job to work at. And the BIG guys who aren’t worth the trouble to type BIG know that.

To them, Unions are bad, because they remove the “beg” factor from creeps that get off on holding their respective employees down. Gives them the feeling of importance they actually have never earned. Beg poodle, beg for work. Then grovel before me saying, “thanks for allowing me to grovel!”

@rfidler
“I still contend that no economic system yet devised does more to improve the lives of more people than capitalism. You might unjustly fall through the cracks, or I might unjustly cheat the system”

I could cede the point of the merits of capitalism (although I would argue that “real” socialism and communism have never really been tested) however, your two “mights” are really two guarantees if capitalism is left unfettered.

The fundamental basis is that those with the capital get the greatest reward on the assumption they bear the greatest risk in a venture—-labor (the actual mechanism by which wealth is created) is merely one more expense to be minimized in order to maximize return to the investor.  Thus, at its very core, capitalism is destined to create a handful of super-rich and a destitute multitude.

“As for the Orwellianly titled EFCA, don’t workers today already have a free choice about whether to organize their company?”

Not really.  Current law says that at any point in the organizational effort, the *employer* can step in and ask that those who have already agreed to organize stop and put together a secret ballot vote.  That’s not freedom.

The *employer* can then stall the negotiations on when and how that vote will be taken while threatening to close shop if the vote is a yes, harassing organizers and firing them, and generally intimidating workers by dangling their jobs on a thread.

The EFCA says that the employees can decide for themselves if they want a ballot, or if they simply want to create a union on the spot.  That’s freedom.

“If a union organizer stared over my shoulder while I filled out my card, how much “free choice” would I feel I had?”

Only you can answer that question for yourself.  However, I personally have told several of them, No and felt not one iota of intimidation.  But then again, this is really a red herring—-how much real influence does a union organizer have?  If I say No, what can they do?!  They, unlike the employer, have no power over my job so there really is no intimidation.

outraged:

I’ll concede your quibble about the definition of “wealthy” vs. “not as poor.” But the point is the same. Most people work if they can net more money at the end of the day by doing so. I say they are wealthier, you say they are not as poor- ok.

And we can debate the value of work, “living wage”, etc til the cows come home. I believe that a good teacher should be the highest paid person in the room. But it’s not “capitalism” that makes that so, any more than it’s “capitalism” that provides eight figure salaries to baseball players. You say, “value is in the eye of the beholder”- precisely. Not in the eye of “capitalism” per se. Wall Street thieves are NOT the reason teachers are so underpaid. Our collective decision to undervalue their work is the reason.

I still contend that no economic system yet devised does more to improve the lives of more people than capitalism. You might unjustly fall through the cracks, or I might unjustly cheat the system a la the AIG pukes, but the entire population, generally speaking, is better served by free market capitalism than any system yet devised. I know you’re tired of hearing that right wing drivel, but I deeply believe it’s true.

As for the Orwellianly titled EFCA, don’t workers today already have a free choice about whether to organize their company? Leave aside corporate goon tactics. (You have a right to walk down the street in safety, but it won’t guarantee you won’t get mugged. And a “Pedestrian Safe Streets Act” won’t help.)If a union organizer stared over my shoulder while I filled out my card, how much “free choice” would I feel I had?

Re: rfidler

Sorry, but I inadvertantly posted before I meant to.  Your comment:

“My skill level, and therefore my labor, is worth more than you would be willing to pay.”

Welcome to the club.  Now you’re talking…. and this IS the reason for the EFCA.  It won’t solve every ill in the world, but it will help and is a move in the right direction.  People should be paid what they are worth.  I don’t know of ANY person who’s labor is only worth $8.00 or $10.00 an hour.  Yet many people work at this level and less, and it is not a sustainable income level.

Let’s say someone lifts 20#, that doesn’t seem so difficult does it.  But if one lifts 20# all day, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year….this is a different thing and should be compensated as such.  Physical work is every bit as difficult as mental work if not MORESO.  However, we routinely dubbed “easier” or “not as complex”.  I’ve done both, I’d much rather work mentally than physically, so “value” is in the eye of the beholder.

Aside from that, these anti-union creeps are not arguing the VALUE of the work, only SHARE OF THE WEALTH pay scales.  They are simply….. greedy pups.

Believe Republicans like Specter are against EFCA for obvious reasons. And it goes without saying, it involves shareholders. This time it’s WalMart:

“The more impressive strike came, however, earlier this morning, when Citibank downgraded Wal-Mart’s stock from a “buy” to a “hold” on fears that passage of EFCA could force the company to unionize which would in turn decrease shareholder profits as more of the company’s worth was distributed to employees.”

[Quote from Ezra Klein’s Site] http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=the_employee_free_choice_wars

Re: rfidler

Your comment: “When people have a job they become wealthier.”

No this is not always the case for the simple reason that there are COSTS associated with working rather than not working, transportation, uniforms, child care, parking fees….etc.

When it happens to increase net income it is impossible to claim that they become “wealthier”, they might only be less poor.  Poor and less poor could certainly never be construed as “wealthier” since the word wealth itself implies a condition of which “a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches”  Random House Dictionary.

Re: rfidler and Jason!!

This might also be of some help, it’s the “Facts v Myth” information regarding the Employee Free Choice Act.  If you check the sidebar at the link there is a wealth of information available.

http://edlabor.house.gov/employee-free-choice-act-myth-vs-fact/index.shtml

Re rfidler: “Why on earth would rich people want to keep poor people poor?”

Get a grip, rfidler.  It’s pretty darn obvious some rich people want to keep people poor.  The article says that business groups have already spent about $20 million lobbying against the legislation they call “card check.”  You can hardly call that supporting the poor. Then, we have those billionaires at AIG and Wall Street who have been stealing from a whole group of people, which has led a a great number of their victims to the poor house.

outraged:
When people have a job they become wealthier. Not Bill Gates wealthy, but better off. If they can’t get good jobs and remain relatively poor, it’s because they probably went to a government-run public school, which almost certainly failed to equip them for life. And if they’re surviving in the middle class, what’s wrong with that?

If I read your wealth distribution stats right, the wealth distribution curve has actually flattened a little in the last ten years- that’s a good thing. Of course, stats are devilish things- there will always be a bottom 20%, and we will always call them “poor” no matter how many cars, plasma tvs and microwaves they own.

As for your job offer, no thanks. My skill level, and therefore my labor, is worth more than you would be willing to pay.

Re Arlen Specter: “Specter said he was concerned that the bill would eliminate union-organizing elections by secret ballot.”

Sure you are, Senator Specter:

“This business about the Employee Free Choice Act taking away the secret ballot is nonsense spread by front groups for corporate fat cats who don’t want to give up their $16,000 wastebaskets,” Hoffa said.

“Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?” Hoffa said. “Town meetings in New England are as democratic as they come, and they don’t use the secret ballot. Elections in the Soviet Union were by secret ballot, but those weren’t democratic.”

The bill would also strengthen penalties for violations against workers who are trying to organize or negotiate a first contract, and ensure all parties negotiate a first contract in good faith.

For 74 years, workers have formed unions either through majority sign-up or a NLRB election. However, employers can veto workers’ decision to organize through majority signup and force them into a divisive NLRB election process. A recent study shows that a pro-union worker is illegally fired in a quarter of all organizing campaigns for NLRB election.”

Quotes From: “Hoffa Commends Sponsors of Employee Free Choice”                                [New York Times, March 10, 2009]

drklassen:
The NLRA requires companies to provide workplace bulletin boards for the purpose of disseminating union information. The content posted on such boards is at the sole discretion of the union.

Sorry, I misread your note- you were in fact talking about non-union shops. I’ll take your word for it.

Re: rfidler

Your comment: “The way to make people wealthy is to give them fucking jobs, NOT fucking handouts, asshole. No poor person I know has offered me a job, but several wealthy ones have.”

In regards to your first statement, how then do you explain the multitudes of people who work and are still poor…?  Or, the multitudes of people who work and are middle class?  Such as this article illustrates:

“The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.”

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

Regarding your second statement, I’ll offer you a job…it’s cleaning toliets for a poor person…..ME.  It doesn’t pay much, but hey…it’s a job.  I didn’t want you to feel so neglected because “No poor person I know has offered me a job”.  Do you feel better now?

Additionally, have you seen this article…?  It’s an excellent article regarding the fear mongering, lies and deceitful practices of some of the rich, USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS, to screw those same taxpayers over….AGAIN!  From Alternate:

“Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community’s top legislative priority.

Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.”

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/123105/revealed:_bailed-out_execs_plotting_against_efca/

BTW, be sure to listen to the podcasts, these people are disgusting degenerates….. no doubt about it, surpassed only by Union Busters better know as “labor relations consultants”.  EVEN A SCAB IS BETTER THAN THE ABOVE, SINCE THEY REALLY MAY NEED THE JOB TO EAT…. and everyone knows how hated scabs are.

Re: Jason!!

Your comment: “Workers are being bullied into this and most are against it.”

This is entirely erroneous and sounds like union busting bs if I’ve ever heard it.  Read “Confessions of a Union Buster” by Martin Levitt.  He EXPOSES many of the tactics used by what business interests call “labor relations consultants”.  From Wiki:

“According to former management consultant Martin Levitt, “When CEO’s hire labor relation consultants to battle a labor union, they close their eyes and give the consultant run of the company.” And John Logan, a labor expert at the London School of Economics, believes that while union avoidance consultants and law firms pay lip service to “preventive” or “positive” labour relations, most of them are actually hired for the specific purpose of counteracting union organizing efforts.”

And:

“Levitt was fighting an organizing drive in a nursing home. The first level of nurses (LPNs) made up a significant proportion of the workforce, and there weren’t enough of the next higher level of nurses (RPNs) to effectively launch a counter-organizing campaign. The LPNs had been a driving force behind the union effort because they felt they were “neither paid nor respected as skilled professionals.” Levitt recommended to the company lawyer that they contest the inclusion of the LPNs in the bargaining unit before the NLRB, and this was successful. Thus, the pro-union LPNs were declared management for the sake of defeating the union. Levitt then composed a letter explaining this hostile maneuver to the nurses, blaming the action on the federal government, implying that the company had no role in their change of status, and describing the good intentions of the company in complying with the law. The letter then asserted the necessity of loyalty that is required of all management employees.

Levitt then informed the pro-union LPNs that they would have to give up their contacts within the union, ostensibly so that — as part of management — they wouldn’t violate federal labor laws prohibiting spying. Levitt states in his book Confessions of a Union Buster that he used improper, and even illegal tactics whenever it suited him, but he withheld such details from the nurses. In contrast to this assertion of management’s innocence in such matters, Levitt portrayed the union as devious and sneaky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting

@rfidler:

“Name a corporation that prohibits unions from providing information to its members. By law, companies are required to provide space in the workplace for unions to post union information of all kinds.”

I know of no such law—-can you cite it?  Many union shops put such provisions into their contracts, but that’s not federal law.

“As I said before, I was a union member for 30 years and NEVER had to sit through an unpaid, mandatory, anti-union ‘training session.’”

Since your shop was already union, what would be the point?  These are tactics used to stop unionization.  There are other tactics used to break them.

Re Arlen Specter: “a recession is the wrong time to increase business costs”

And does Specter think this is a good time for families?  According to the Federal Reserve’s latest survey, the Median Incomes for families has declined:

“. . . Its latest survey of family finances was released last week. It covers the period between 2004 and 2007—before the cascade of economic misfortune rained down hard in 2008. The Fed lays it all out: “Median incomes declined over the 2004-07 period for all groups except childless, single families. ... The largest decline (4.5 percent) was for couples ... with children.”

  Yup, those very hard-working American families so venerated in political speeches and campaign commercials. The same politicians who use these families as props were willfully blind to the downward trajectory of their lives. Many of them promoted policies that sped this spiral while they lifted up the fortunes of their most fortunate political backers.

  Three years does not make an economic lifetime. So what was going on before that? “Median income measured in the survey had been relatively flat for all income groups since 2001 after an earlier period of growth before 1998,” the Fed says.

  So incomes flat-lined for most of the decade, then began to sink. Americans made up for the gap between income and expenses with deficit spending. The Fed report says nearly half of families carried a credit card balance in 2007. The median balance rose by 25 percent during the three years of the survey and stood at about $3,000.

  This is what the ledger looked like before the millions of layoffs, pay cuts and freezes and all-around misery now forced upon us. This didn’t start with the mortgage and credit crisis. It all began with the wage crisis.”

[Blame Your Puny Paycheck by Marie Cocco] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090216_cocco_standard_of_living/

louise:

Let me see if I understand you. The rich guy won’t give the poor guy money, because, if he did, the rich guy’s toilets wouldn’t get cleaned. So you would force the rich guy to give the poor guy money, so the poor guy wouldn’t have to clean toilets anymore. So we would all be a) living with dirty toilets, or b) cleaning our own toilets, in an egalitarian paradise. Trouble is, there’s no evidence of this arrangement in the history of toilet-using man, and isn’t likely to anytime soon.

I liked your analysis of the NLRA. I agree that congress had messed with it too much. I totally agree that Republicans vilify big labor purely because of the votes they lose. But I also contend that the Democrats treat labor like a red headed stepchild (hope you’re not a redhead and/or offended).

Youre only picking out parts of what I say. You still dont answer as to what your well thought out , cogezent arguments are. You dont have any.I’m not going to read your whole post.

Bye.

kdelphi:

Why am “I” hostile?!

What bullshit capitalism is.
Shit. I heard him this morning. This is f*cked up.
I am all for class warfare.

I suppose you think this passes for an argument worth responding to.

rfidler—you can make them wealthy by giving them money too. These guys on Wall St dont “work”.

Why are you so HOSTILE?! Losing the conservative political gane or what is it? Do you have a particular problem with me? I dont AIM my cursing at you. I just use curse words. Everytime I do, you seem to mention it.

You know I dont give a rat’s ass what you think, but, i think you need to figure out why youre so hostile. If it is because neo-con “values” have been revealed, for what they are (greed, closed-mindedness, rage and hatred), never fear! The Dems ALWAYS screw it up and you’ll be back in business in no time! The ‘Merkin people have very short memories….I’m sure you will pull another bush over their eyes in your lifetime. Count on it.

rfidler,

“Why on earth would rich people want to keep poor people poor?”
~~~

OK, as soon as I stop laughing, I’ll answer that one! (Deep breath)

Because SOMEBODY has to do the DIRTY work!

Oh gee that felt good. Everybody needs a good laugh once in a while!

Speaking of laugh, watching C-span is sometimes fun. Like Senator Hatch’s (R Utah) Senate Republican Conference on Union Organizing Rules. (The Free Choice Act)

Senator Bennett (R Utah) tells us recent polls indicate 75% of workers don’t want this legislation. I have no doubt that is correct in Utah. They’re as terrified of Unions as they are of the anti-Christ! Having spent equal time understanding the meaning of both.

Everything the members of this “Conference” say is based on the notion that the Legislation does away with the secret ballot, which it doesn’t. But no sense trying to pound sense into this exclusive panel of Republicans, holding their hearing exclusively to make political points, with a hand picked panel of Conservative business representatives and former Bush Labor administrators, exclusively representing the pre-decided outcome of this exclusive Conference on Union Organizing Rules. All in the name of (using) Labor for political points!

Another well-informed Senator made the observation that we’ve had ample laws, abundently fair, allowing Unions to organize, for years. And there was no need for further legislation to protect their rights. No doubt he meant the rules put in place in 1935 and regularly gutted ever since, leading up to the “successes” of the last administration.

The new labor laws established by the Wagner Act in 1935 were quickly challenged. In its first two years, lower courts found provisions of the law unconstitutional. But then, in 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the law.

However, In 1938 the Supreme Court placed important limitations on the NLRA. For example, ruling that although striking workers could not be fired, they could be permanently replaced ...

Yeh, I know.

Almost immediately, administration after administartion began making compromise after compromise, in order to woo conservatives, which pretty well says it all. When it comes to what conservatives actually think about their constituants who labor, they don’t.

Think about them that is, unless there’s a political advantage to be gained.

kdelphi:
No asshole, I’m not a fucking puritan.

The way to make people wealthy is to give them fucking jobs, NOT fucking handouts, asshole. No poor person I know has offered me a job, but several wealthy ones have.

rfidler—what are you , some kind of puritan? no one else ever comments on it. I dont see how its any of your business!

Your quotes are sarcastic?? or what?? Speaking of no cogent argument!! Where is yours?? What do you say to my arguments of how the rich could make everyone wealthy, and, that they want to keep most people powerless? Do you ever really respond to anyone’s arguments?

Why are you so obsesssed with cursse words? You are wierd…

xypher—As for the GOP being solely to blame for the anti-Union efforts, they are paid to commit, take a look at history—check out Clinton et al. Even Pres. Obama said that he would “rather have a way to promote Unions without angering business”. That worried me. Now, I am afraid he wont support it to the extent that it needs to be passed.

If you want to support “We the People”, you have to look outside the duopoly, I’m afraid.

The real problem is that Obama really doesn’t want this union bill to succeed either. He is willing to screw the labor unions that got him elected. Then when the Blue Dogs attack his budget, he’s going to come crawling back to the left.

I AM REALLY SICK OF THIS GAME.

Let’s face it. Wall Street, the insurance companies, the credit card companies and the health insurance corporations have continually screwed the real economy, real undustry and average Americans (and citizens of the world). Charging over 10% interest on ANYTHING is immoral. Profit-taking from sick people is sick. Wall Street is a false economy that has become Las Vegas for the rich at our expense.

Obama is going in the wrong direction with the worst people. And he still hasn’t done anything to help the workers and middle class, who, apparently, turns out, are the only people with real money albeit a shrinking amount.

daga:
You assume the pie is a fixed size and will remain ever so. But we can grow the pie without raping the land or disenfranchizing anyone. What is BNP? And by US do you mean “us” or “U.S.”? And is there an egalitarian society you can point to in history that has progressed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage?

kdelphi:
Welcome back. I see your street language is as pungent as ever- still no substitute for cogent thought though. To paraphrase whoever said it, “You can’t make a man rich by giving him fish, you make him rich by teaching him how to fish.” And to paraphrase the rock and roll song, “Take from the rich, give to the poor, til there are no rich no more.”

xypher:
“Nuclear option”! You warmonger!

I see that Obama wants to change the tax code to limit charitable deductions. Brilliant idea. Now it will be even harder for the poor to tap into the wealthy’s pockets. Love that change!

Nuclear Option…the Repugnlican Elite must be stopped from destroying the Middle Class in America. Shut them out 100%...they had years in power and screwed everything up…AGAIN!!!

Keep in mind we have the best and strongest union that the Repuglicans are powerless against…We the People!

Shit. I heard him this morning. This is f*cked up.

I am all for class warfare. We would win, you know.It is not about “ENVY”—-it is about justice.

The rich want to keep the poor powerles and needy. Poverty is the most disempowering expericne a persn can have, within caitalism (moneyism). When it is a matter of life or death, especially for those you love, what wouldnt a person do? The rich count on it. If they wanted everyone to be rich, there is such a huge wealth gap, they could give their excess income to the poor, and, everybodys rich! What bullshit capitalism is.

We will soon see what it would be like to have “all of ‘Merka rich”—China will show us. If every Chinese adopts a “US middle class” style of living, which most here can no longer maintain, the planet will shake us off like the fleas that we are.

rfidler `

Holy Macaroni What planet are you living on?

The rich people I know would be more than happy if everyone were rich. Too bad the poor people you know share the opposite sentiment.

If all the people should have the living standard we enjoy in the West, we would need 6 planet’s resources. And any country has a limited generation of values reflected in the BNP. In an egalitarian society this is distributed more or less even. In US , a few people are getting big pieces of the Pie-which of course leaves less to the others. Your assertion that all could be rich is naivite bordering on stupidity.

Jason,

Who, or what, is the “Democrat Party” you refer to?

drklassen: re your second post.
Name a corporation that prohibits unions from providing information to its members. By law, companies are required to provide space in the workplace for unions to post union information of all kinds. As I said before, I was a union member for 30 years and NEVER had to sit through an unpaid, mandatory, anti-union ‘training session.’

As for the class warfare canard- Why on earth would rich people want to keep poor people poor? What threat do poor people pose? How would the rich benefit from that? The rich people I know would be more than happy if everyone were rich. Too bad the poor people you know share the opposite sentiment.

Labor Unions are the a American people’s last and best hope to counter the MIRB’s (Military Industrial Robber Barons) influence in Washington. Since Reagan America has had a downward spiral economically and politically. It used to be a land of Enterprise and production. Today you are a land of consumers and greed. All you have left is an overblown military power. This you can maintain as long as the chinese are willing to buy your debt,bet when they unleash all these IOU’s on the open market-what will you do ?

Jason!!:
Well put.

drklassen:
Back to the old envy game I see (re: AIG bonuses).

Let’s say a textile factory in North Carolina (if there are any left) is forced to unionize. The shirts they used to make for ten dollars, will now cost twelve due to the increased wages and benefits demanded by the new contract. The local mom and pop store could sell shirts for ten dollars, but at twelve dollars, sales plummeted. To survive, the mom and pop store buys ten dollar shirts from China. What’s the nasty capitalist factory owner to do? Sell the business, take his money, and lay off the workers. Who “feel(s) the pinch” here?

You would have to create an artificial market structure out of whole cloth to make sure everyone could keep their jobs and their shirts. Who would ‘command’ such an artificial marketplace? You? You certainly wouldn’t trust a koolaid drinking, whore-to-the-system Harvard MBA with the task. Maybe someone from the Cuban sugar ministry.

I was a member of an airline union. During contract negotiations, in the good times, the company said, “We’ll give you what you want, but we won’t be able to hire new workers.” During bad times, it said, “We’ll give you what you want, but we’ll have to lay off the bottom ten percent.” Do I have to tell you that the majority of the membership always responded with, “Pull up the ladder, I got mine.” I’m not making this up.

The attitude of the vast majority of blue collar workers toward money and power is no different than that of the ‘criminal capitalist roaders’ you so despise. It’s only a matter of scale.

I know you want to believe in some vision of the downtrodden masses who live for nothing else but to help their fellow humans fight the criminal depredations of the plutocrats, but it just ain’t there. We’re all looking out for Number One.

The extremely tiny minority of people who don’t care about money and power and Number One will not ‘The Revolution’ make.

@Jason!!: The bill empowers workers more than anyone else.  And if you think union leaders are bullies, what about corporations that harass and fire anyone who breathes the word “union”?  What about corporations that can force workers to attend unpaid, mandatory “training” that is basically anti-union propaganda while barring union rep’s from doing the same?  If you really think unions are the power that needs to be protected from, your are on some other planet.

As for Dems bringing class warfare—-no likely.  Class warfare has been around ever since there were rich folks wanting to keep poor folks “in their place”.  It had ebbed a bit during after the depression, but Reagan brought it back to great effect with his mythical Welfare Queens and the Repub’s have been riding that wave ever since.

This bill empowers the union leaders at the expense of the worker. Workers are being bullied into this and most are against it.

This is a Democrat party invention to reward the unions for putting their boy in office. Its a scam and a disgrace.

Arlen Specter has been in Obama’s court and only switched his position after learning just how bad this bill is.

and drklassen, wake up. Your dems brought the class warefare to the table along with race…

Class warfare again from the Republicans:  The economy is too bad to let the poor and powerless more easily bargain for living wages because then the rich might feel the pinch.