Socialists Beware

[Flanders]

It’s a step in the right direction, but there is still a long, long, way to go before forcing one American to support the beliefs of another is stopped:

Jun 21, 10:57 AM EDT
Court: Union must give fee increase notice
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.

News from The Associated Press

 

[midcan5]

Unions created the middle class in America, even today the fear of unionization helps America's workers. Should unions disappear we will live in a Walmart world of low pay, poor treatment, and no benefits. The benefits and resources of America will continue to go to the top while the worker will continue to lose. Since Reagan that is a fact most ignore.

But this case wasn't about unions, it was about how unions operate and they too have their faults. I was once a shop steward so I saw their faults first hand. But that said without unions workers are simply pawns with no freedom and little rights. As far as being bad for socialists, that idea like all 'isms' is not relevant. What works and doesn't work is the relevant piece.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50913-american-unions.html#post617599

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/79041-cheap-labor.html


"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

Unions created the middle class in America, even today the fear of unionization helps America's workers. Should unions disappear we will live in a Walmart world of low pay, poor treatment, and no benefits. The benefits and resources of America will continue to go to the top while the worker will continue to lose. Since Reagan that is a fact most ignore.

But this case wasn't about unions, it was about how unions operate and they too have their faults. I was once a shop steward so I saw their faults first hand. But that said without unions workers are simply pawns with no freedom and little rights. As far as being bad for socialists, that idea like all 'isms' is not relevant. What works and doesn't work is the relevant piece.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50913-american-unions.html#post617599

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/79041-cheap-labor.html

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books

To midcan5: Imposing the tax collector’s morality on the American people in any way is a violation of the First Amendment. What I said to you in the Reading & Writing thread applies to public employee unions as well:

The objection is to forcing one person to pay for another person’s beliefs. Liberals can always find justification to support public funding for any facet of socialism while skillfully avoiding the question of force though taxation —— not to mention the First Amendment’s prohibition against a state religion which is what socialism is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ”

In short: Everything that uses tax dollars to force one group’s morality on all of society should be the basis for defining religion. No law circumventing the First Amendment with tax dollars should be upheld. It is my fond hope that Knox v SEIU will take the SCOTUS in that direction in future decisions.

I read your links. You are obviously pro-union without separating private sector unions from government unions. If you want to engage in a philosophical approach to labor unions rather than the evils of public funding, I always make the distinction between private and public as I did in this recent thread about the defeat government unions suffered in Wisconsin:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/228189-mobilizing-the-howitzers.html

Over the years I’ve noticed that the “union members” I debated always turn out to be less knowledgeable about the American Labor Movement than are the folks who oppose labor unions outright. Today’s pro-labor union advocates never seem to know that the leaders of government unions support and enrich the very people you cite as villains, nor does the rank & file seem to know there are two organized labor entities operating in the United States:

1. The private sector labor movement.

2. The government employee labor movement.

These entities were always diametrically opposed to one another although private sector union members are shielded from that truth at all costs.

The possibility that private sector labor unions might return to an adversarial relationship with management is the biggest economic fear Socialists/Communists live with. Should that fear become a reality great opposition to the creation of tax dollar millionaires loyal to socialism would spring up like Jack’s beanstalk. That possibility is better eliminated before it takes hold.

One way for government unions to eliminate competition from private sector labor unions is to transfer as many jobs as possible to foreign countries. Once those industries that lend themselves to organized labor here in the United States are spread thin in dozens of foreign countries, the private sector labor union will disappear entirely. Private sector laborers in every country can then be enslaved by the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) in order to establish and preserve a universal wage scale at the lowest possible level. This must take place before absentee ownership can be advanced and protected on a global scale.

Socialists must always leech off of the producers. If the producers aren’t working there is nothing to freeload. In the case of labor unions, Socialists are twice a leech. They don a cloak of respectability by hiding in the ranks of necessary civil servants, while at the same time they camp under the same tent as private sector labor unions; feeding on, while controlling, both.

There hasn’t been a private sector labor movement in this country since the National Labor Relations Act was amended by Taft-Hartley in 1947. The private sector labor movement in the U.S. was only effective from about 1934 until Taft-Hartley became law over President Truman’s veto; a period of thirteen or so years.

Private sector unions were established in the US way back into the nineteenth century, but they were powerless for the most part until the Great Depression. I once belonged to a maritime union that was founded in 1884, but it remained relatively powerless until the nineteen-thirties.

Brief history of the Sailors Union of the Pacific

Whenever a seaman quit a ship prior to the year 1934, that ship’s master would write in the seaman’s employment book what he thought of that seaman’s performance and conduct. That book, known as a fink book, was despised by every seaman who ever sailed before the mast. Before a seaman could sign aboard a ship, the ship’s master would read what previous masters had to say about the job applicant. If there was one black mark in the fink book the seaman in question was not hired. Seamen were required to carry and present the very instrument that might deny them employment. Without a fink book in his possession a seaman would be lucky to find a berth on the meanest of ships.

Even before labor legislation came into existence, steamship companies would call the union hiring hall for replacements. Seamen who shipped out of the hiring hall were required to supply their fink books upon demand. The hiring hall, going back to the year 1900 or thereabouts, was nothing more than a shack on a pier in San Francisco harbor.

During the big strike in 1934, the boys got together at the Ferry Building down at the foot of Market Street in San Francisco and burned their fink books; no small decision in the throes of a deepening depression. They either won that strike or they could forget about earning a living on ships. Of course, they won that all important strike and fink books were done away with. Or, to be more accurate, the fink book evolved into “seaman’s papers” issued by the US Coast Guard. Seaman’s papers are nothing more than a military type ID card the Coast Guard can revoke at any time. Without that ID card, you don’t work on the few American flag vessels still left.

Incidentally, your experience notwithstanding:

I was once a shop steward so I saw their faults first hand.

I suspect you never heard of the SUP; so you really don’t want to be arguing unions with a former book member until you are well-versed in the subject.

Private sector labor unions, during their brief period of some political influence, contributed much to creating a secure private sector middle class. Government unions had nothing to do with it.

A private sector middle class is a cancer on society when viewed from a government perspective. To Socialists/Communists every society should be structured with them at the top, government employees and business managers/owners in the middle class. Every private sector worker, skilled and unskilled, at the bottom; earning less than the lowest paid government employee. Anything less than that societal structure is not pure socialism. Private sector unions were given the dirty end of the stick after Taft-Hartley with the exception of a very few unions whose members are still well paid.

When the A.F. of L. merged with the CIO in 1955 the heart and soul of the private sector labor movement was finally laid to rest. Taft-Hartley combined with the merger to give big government advocates absolute control over all labor just by controlling a few labor leaders.

Most importantly, private sector unions lost the Right to call a job action at the local level. Taft-Hartley also took away the union power that is inherent in secondary boycotts. Example: If union members working in an oil refinery strike against an oil company at the refinery, union members can’t picket gas stations selling that company’s product. That’s a secondary boycott. Organized labor’s awesome power was effectively placed in the hands of a few union officials who play golf with the executives of major corporations and high-ranking government officials.

America’s part in WWII was fought from Dec. 1941 to Aug. 1945; towards the end of the private sector labor movement’s most influential years. I don’t know just what effect the war had on union membership, but I do know that the men and women who fought that war did not flock to the union banner when they came home. Had they done so Taft-Hartley would never have become law.

Private sector union members should ask themselves the following questions before voting for candidates who are unquestionably in favor of big government:

1. How many unionized teaching jobs went overseas because of trade agreements?

2. How many teaching jobs of any kind went overseas?

3. How many administrative jobs in the entire field of education went overseas?

4. What is the number of all unionized civil service jobs lost to foreign trade agreements?

5. Do private sector unions have as much influence in Washington, or in state capitals, as do civil service and teachers’ unions?

6. Do I actually believe that civil service unions controlled by big government Socialists are rowing the boat in the same direction as me?

7. Is there one private sector union whose members receive full pay from the company for not showing up for work?

NOTE: Private sector Americans loved it when the government was shut down by President Clinton. Americans thought the national debt could be paid off if federal employees stayed home for a while. Americans only turned against government shut downs when they found out that federal employees were going to receive full pay and benefits for not working. No private sector union ever got a deal like that during organized labor’s best years. As far as I know the labor contract with federal civil service unions remains the same.

Could the answers to the above questions be the reason why so many Americans have turned against all unions? (There was a time in this country when many non-union Americans would honor a picket line as a show of respect for working people. Not so anymore.)

It just blows my mind knowing that rank & file private sector union members vote for the very Democrats who have been screwing them in incremental steps since Taft-Hartley. It is global village Democrats who are most responsible for sending jobs overseas, yet trade agreements alone are blamed for the loss of union jobs. Conservatives are not lily-white in this area to be sure, but they are less to blame for loss jobs than are the global villagers.

NOTE: It can be argued that there never was a wholly (or holy) American Labor Movement because American labor unions were always philosophically married to internationalism. “Workers of the world unite, blah, blah, blah.” Should a pure American Labor Union Movement actually emerge from the ashes, the first thing they should do is eliminate the word International from all labor union titles. Indeed, International is always a noun in a labor union’s title. I do not expect the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to comply.

Considering the way rank & file union members vote, I have to conclude that those voters think they have it as good as it can get. My view is that things would be a hell of a lot better with a much smaller government controlling less of everything. Jobs will never come back to this country as long as the political power is committed to a mythical global village. And it would certainly be much better if every leech is driven away from the public trough. “If you ain’t necessary in maintaining traditional government, you ain’t getting your hands on tax dollars” says it all for me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unions created the middle class in America, even today the fear of unionization helps America's workers. Should unions disappear we will live in a Walmart world of low pay, poor treatment, and no benefits. The benefits and resources of America will continue to go to the top while the worker will continue to lose. Since Reagan that is a fact most ignore.

But this case wasn't about unions, it was about how unions operate and they too have their faults. I was once a shop steward so I saw their faults first hand. But that said without unions workers are simply pawns with no freedom and little rights. As far as being bad for socialists, that idea like all 'isms' is not relevant. What works and doesn't work is the relevant piece.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50913-american-unions.html#post617599

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/79041-cheap-labor.html


"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books

But unions are not going anywhere and collective bargaining still exists for those that actually want to collectively bargain. The threat of unionization will always be there and the small unionized portion of workers will also still be there to keep competitors wages honest.

What IS going to go away is the bullshit legal protections that unions get when they FORCE people to be a member and pay them money when the worker wants no part in the union. I can't for the life of me figure out why unions seem to be so important that some want freedoms to be TAKEN AWAY in order to allow them an income from unwilling participants.

 

[Flanders]

What IS going to go away is the bullshit legal protections that unions get when they FORCE people to be a member and pay them money when the worker wants no part in the union. I can't for the life of me figure out why unions seem to be so important that some want freedoms to be TAKEN AWAY in order to allow them an income from unwilling participants.

To FA_Q2: You got that right.

Unfortunately, they won’t go quietly. Listen to this crap:

“Our success or failure will mark a turning point not only for our union but for the entire labor movement," said Saunders, the former number two who succeeded Gerald McEntee as president of the union, the largest in the AFL-CIO federation.

U.S. public workers say organized labor at a turning point
By Lisa Lambert and James B. Kelleher | Reuters – 4 hrs ago

U.S. public workers say organized labor at a turning point - Yahoo! News

Private sector unions organized and succeeded in spite of government forces doing everything they could do to stop them; including beating strikers senseless. Government unions did nothing when American jobs and entire industries were outsourced. Now, they’ve got the balls to claim they are saving the entire labor movement. The only thing they want to save is their prominent spot at the public trough.

 

[editec]

BAD uinions are BAD.

Good unions are good.

There ARE bad unions.


duh!

 

[Sallow]

Funny when the government gets involved with the internal decisions of Unions..conservatives think the government is good..but when they do that with business it's bad.

Unions are labor's way of negotiating with big business. And almost the very second they started up in this country..big business BEGGED the government to get involved.

 

[Flanders]

Funny when the government gets involved with the internal decisions of Unions..conservatives think the government is good..but when they do that with business it's bad.

Unions are labor's way of negotiating with big business. And almost the very second they started up in this country..big business BEGGED the government to get involved.

To Sallow: Once again a Lefty mixes oranges and apples.

In the beginning big business naturally opposed labor unions; so they turned to the government to help crush unions. See #6 permalink. Today, it is the pubic opposing tax dollar funded unions; i.e., government employee unions.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s a bit more clarification for anyone looking to understand the full importance of Knox v SEIU:

June 25, 2012
SCOTUS Derails the Democrats' SEIU Gravy Train
By Edward H. Stewart, Jr.

Some days, things just work out right. Last Thursday was one of those days for conservatives. It was a day of reckoning for the Service Employees International Union and the Democratic politicians they use our tax dollars to buy and pay for. And it was a day the United States Supreme Court stood strong for our First Amendment rights. Justice Alito's majority opinion in Knox v. SEIU met the uncompromising standard set by Citizens United and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. It not only reasserted the constitutional protection of free speech against union power, but also held that the process by which protection against compelled speech is afforded must not itself become a burden.

A little background is in order. Under California's agency shop law, public employees are not required to join a union to keep their jobs; however, non-members are assessed a percentage of the union's regular dues as a condition of employment. The rationale is that since non-members enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining, they should bear their fair share of its costs. To protect non-members' First Amendment rights, they are required to pay for only the percentage of total dues that covers those costs, not for the union's "political or ideological projects".

Articles: SCOTUS Derails the Democrats' SEIU Gravy Train

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety

~Oddball

 

[Flanders]

LABOR UNIONS UPDATE​

Notice how Tom Perez implies that the American Labor Movement included public sector unions from the beginning:

It’s a good thing for labor unions that Antonin Scalia died earlier this year, Tom Perez, President Obama’s Labor Secretary, said on Thursday.

Perez, a progressive whom Hillary Clinton considered choosing as her running mate, was answering questions during a session at the Washington Ideas Forum when he was asked about strategies to increase labor union membership.

“Well, I think you have all these — there’s an unmitigated assault on labor unions across a number of states and there was a case that went before the Supreme Court recently, and frankly if Justice Scalia had not passed away it would have really made it very difficult for public sector labor unions to organize and that would have been one step in a very transparent and well-choreographed set of objectives from folks on the far right to eviscerate the labor movement,” Perez told the audience.​

Obama Cabinet Official Says It’s A Good Thing Justice Scalia Died
Chuck Ross
Reporter
11:41 AM 09/29/2016

Obama Cabinet Official Says It’s A Good Thing Justice Scalia Died [VIDEO]​

The fact is:

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988, which permitted collective bargaining by federal employees. Widely seen as a gift to George Meany, the AFL-CIO head who helped Kennedy win the White House, the executive order was also a gift to government unions, both because it widened federal membership and because it signaled national approval of unions for state and local employees.​

How Government Unions Became So Powerful
Author: Amity Shlaes, Former Hayek Senior Fellow for Political Economy
September 4, 2010
Wall Street Journal

http://www.cfr.org/labor/government-unions-became-so-powerful/p22887​

NOTE: The brief WSJ article will give you a sense of the labor movement, but not the full scope of the conflict between public and private sector unions. I sum it this way: No member of a private sector union should ever vote for a Democrat.

Now look at why FDR opposed government unions:

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”​

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions
James Sherk
Updated July 23, 2014, 4:19 PM

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - NYTimes.com​

FDR gave Perez every reason to praise Antonin Scalia’s death.