Still Up To Their Marxist Tricks

[Polk]

Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

Getting a lecture on math from someone who can't subtract. That's pricless. Newsflash: 100 minus nine is 91, not 81.

And the rate of unionization has declined because many states passed laws (right to free ride provisions) over that span which effectively outlawed labor unions.

Touche on the math.

But you lose on the precipitous drop in union membership, as your indication that workers would choose to work in union-free worksites prove my point , not yours.

And, if you cannot show said laws "which effectively outlawed labor unions.' then the only honorable thing for you to do is admit you are wrong. Waiting.


Or- would you like to claim what is regularly the left-wing fall-back position, as stated in my "Liberal Libretto:"

Rule 3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”
b. Claim the public has been ‘brainwashed,’ and politicians bought.

Math mistakes happen. My tone was only because of the snarky tone you took re: my education (which was a mix of public and private, depending on the level). Can we just agree in the future to treat each other in a more respectful manner?

Workers aren't making a choice to work in union-free worksites. They don't get a choice. Right-to-work laws effectively outlaw labor unions. They don't do so in practice, but they have the practical effect of doing so. If all workers are entitled to the benefits of the union's collective bargaining even if they aren't a member, no individual has the incentive to join the union. The result is that even though workers would be able to increase their bargaining power by unionization, no individual has the incentive to do so, creating a collective action problem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

6,210 charges filed against unions, over a period during which 16,179 violations were committed by employers. AKA, you're more that twice as likely to have your employer commit a labor law violation.

I think I gotcha again.

My original post on this topic was a counter to the smug "Because we know that employers would never ever intimidate their employees."
Know who said that? Right...you.

So I have correctly documented that 38.4% (is my math getting better?) of the cases were brought by employers, and since it would be beneath your intellect to claim that there are only twice as many employees as employers, it would seem that there should be far more NLRB complaints by employees.

I'll guess that there are 100 employees for every employer, but let's stipulate, say 10 to one. Certainly ther should be more than two to one charges by employees.

Nicht wahr?

 

[Polk]

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

6,210 charges filed against unions, over a period during which 16,179 violations were committed by employers. AKA, you're more that twice as likely to have your employer commit a labor law violation.

I think I gotcha again.

My original post on this topic was a counter to the smug "Because we know that employers would never ever intimidate their employees."

Know who said that? Right...you.

So I have correctly documented that 38.4% (is my math getting better?) of the cases were brought by employers, and since it would be beneath your intellect to claim that there are only twice as many employees as employers, it would seem that there should be far more NLRB complaints by employees.

I'll guess that there are 100 employees for every employer, but let's stipulate, say 10 to one. Certainly ther should be more than two to one charges by employees.

Nicht wahr?

That's working on the assumption that all cases brought against unions were brought by employers, is it not?

 

[Polk]

I'm going to go for run, but I'll be sure to check in later.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Second, instead of improving workers’ benefits, unions have become political action committees: take money from workers to give to politicians to help them get elected, and then politicians pass laws that make ‘capitalism’ moot. SEIU President Andy Stern: “We spent a fortune t elect Barack Obama- $60.7 million, to be exact- and we’re proud of it.”

And? Money used for union PAC committees are independent of membership dues. Anyone who contributes to the union PAC does so knowing that the money is going to be used to support pro-labor politicians.

See, now you're resorting to the "Libral Libretto"

Rule 6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’


You know very well that I said:
"Second, instead of improving workers’ benefits, unions have become political action committees: take money from workers to give to politicians to help them get elected, and then politicians pass laws that make ‘capitalism’ moot. SEIU President Andy Stern: “We spent a fortune t elect Barack Obama- $60.7 million, to be exact- and we’re proud of it.”

You are trying to conflate my statement with actual political action committees. Sneaky, but transparent. My point is that the entire union movement is to camoflage political action.

And I even gave that great SEIU example, completely documented in the post, of firing workers and claiming they needed the money to support President Obama!

Boy, you're really slipping.
When you came back, I was hoping for a better workout.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot. That's a lie put out by business interests in an attempt to kill the bill. The bill places the choice where it should be: with the workers. Majority signup to form a union isn't new. It's already a method allowed under current law. The only difference this bill makes is that it allows workers to make the decision instead of the employer. Why is this important? Because employers will always choose an election so they'll have the lead time to apply illegal pressure to organizers. Organizers are routinely fired during this period to set an example to other employers who dare "make trouble" by exercising their legal rights. The arbitration provisions are necessary because even if the illegal attempts to suppress the vote fail, employers often refuse to negotate with the union (a violation of existing law).

Polky-

Glad to see you return to the fray!

I must remember to remove you from the category of lefties who ignore and play dumb.
Congrats!

And thanks for catching the 100-9 error. I don't know how I could have.

Now for the joust.
Your post is far more of an exaggeration than mine. While it is true that "The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot..." I'm sure that a bright fellow like you can guess what will happen.

No? Then read the following:
"Organized labor's highest legislative priority is the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). EFCA replaces secret ballot elections—the method by which most workers join unions—with publicly signed union cards. While eliminating secret ballots is extremely unpopular, many EFCA support*ers argue that the legislation merely gives workers the choice between organizing using secret ballots or pub*licly signed cards. This argument is false; nothing in the legislation gives workers any control over union organizing tactics. Though EFCA still allows for secret ballot elections under unusual circumstances, stan*dard union organizing tactics ensure that publicly signed union cards will dominate the recognition pro*cess. As a result, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act effectively eliminates secret ballot elections."
Employee Free Choice Act Effectively Eliminates Secret Ballot Organizing Elections

Surely you cannot, with a straight face, continue the charade, or you must then argue that the $400 million given by big labor was a charitable contribution.

Ball's in your court.

I'm not saying that there won't be cases where the use of signup cards to form a union results in abuse. I'm simply stating the alternative is far worse. To say it eliminates the secret ballot though is fundamentally dishonest. It's still an option if the employees want it. Labor organizations helped support Obama's campaign because they felt that would increase the probability of EFCA passing. It wasn't a gift and I'd never claim it was. It's because he supports their position on the piece of legislation they see as most important.

Polky, your arguments are showing weakness.

Come on, man up.

Scenario. The organizers come around with the clipboard, suggesting that you sign up, you know, "like everyone else in the factory."
And you say, what, "Oh,no,I demand a secret ballot!"

I don't think so.

Or at least folks with less backbone than you (just tryin' to help you out) would just sign up to get the enforce- er, organizers out of their face.

Did you get this part:
"Though EFCA still allows for secret ballot elections under unusual circumstances, stan*dard union organizing tactics ensure that publicly signed union cards will dominate the recognition pro*cess. As a result, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act effectively eliminates secret ballot elections."

Wanna try again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Getting a lecture on math from someone who can't subtract. That's pricless. Newsflash: 100 minus nine is 91, not 81.

And the rate of unionization has declined because many states passed laws (right to free ride provisions) over that span which effectively outlawed labor unions.

Touche on the math.

But you lose on the precipitous drop in union membership, as your indication that workers would choose to work in union-free worksites prove my point , not yours.

And, if you cannot show said laws "which effectively outlawed labor unions.' then the only honorable thing for you to do is admit you are wrong. Waiting.


Or- would you like to claim what is regularly the left-wing fall-back position, as stated in my "Liberal Libretto:"

Rule 3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”
b. Claim the public has been ‘brainwashed,’ and politicians bought.

Math mistakes happen. My tone was only because of the snarky tone you took re: my education (which was a mix of public and private, depending on the level). Can we just agree in the future to treat each other in a more respectful manner?

Workers aren't making a choice to work in union-free worksites. They don't get a choice. Right-to-work laws effectively outlaw labor unions. They don't do so in practice, but they have the practical effect of doing so. If all workers are entitled to the benefits of the union's collective bargaining even if they aren't a member, no individual has the incentive to join the union. The result is that even though workers would be able to increase their bargaining power by unionization, no individual has the incentive to do so, creating a collective action problem.

But Polky, the teasing is the best fun I have!

Oh, and nice tie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Getting a lecture on math from someone who can't subtract. That's pricless. Newsflash: 100 minus nine is 91, not 81.

And the rate of unionization has declined because many states passed laws (right to free ride provisions) over that span which effectively outlawed labor unions.

Touche on the math.

But you lose on the precipitous drop in union membership, as your indication that workers would choose to work in union-free worksites prove my point , not yours.

And, if you cannot show said laws "which effectively outlawed labor unions.' then the only honorable thing for you to do is admit you are wrong. Waiting.


Or- would you like to claim what is regularly the left-wing fall-back position, as stated in my "Liberal Libretto:"

Rule 3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”
b. Claim the public has been ‘brainwashed,’ and politicians bought.

Math mistakes happen. My tone was only because of the snarky tone you took re: my education (which was a mix of public and private, depending on the level). Can we just agree in the future to treat each other in a more respectful manner?

Workers aren't making a choice to work in union-free worksites. They don't get a choice. Right-to-work laws effectively outlaw labor unions. They don't do so in practice, but they have the practical effect of doing so. If all workers are entitled to the benefits of the union's collective bargaining even if they aren't a member, no individual has the incentive to join the union. The result is that even though workers would be able to increase their bargaining power by unionization, no individual has the incentive to do so, creating a collective action problem.

"Workers aren't making a choice to work in union-free worksites. They don't get a choice. Right-to-work laws effectively outlaw labor unions."

Whaaaaat?

And here I thougt you lived in America???

And which gulag are you writing from??

See, now you're going for that old liberal victimology thesis. This is , what is the term?
Oh, yeah. Baloney.

I believe the concept you are looking for is 'kidnapping."

Everyone I know quits and finds work elsewhere when they don't like the conditions.

Remember what I said originally, about you folks making believe we're still in the 1930's? Bingo.
And your understanding about right to work is faulty. At the least, workers must pat the equivalent of the cost of bargaining to any union at the site where they work.

 

[rdean]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

On June 20, 2007 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today called for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For decades, the process of a work force becoming unionized has been based on a secret-ballot election. First, workers with interest in a union sign authorization cards. If 30 percent sign, the National Labor Relations Board schedules an election that the government agency supervises. A majority vote allows in a union. If this bill wins, and it will under an Obama administration, union officials would be allowed to hover over a worker seeking his signature on a card. How many would be able to resist the intimidation? Nothing subtle here.
Obama has signaled that he would sign onto a new “fairness doctrine,” which would curtail right-wing views expressed on radio. But no such restrictions for the left-wing print media or main stream broadcast TV. Repression?
The Obama campaign has supported ACORN, which fraudulently registers multitudes of individuals who are judged to vote Democrat. In effect, repressing the opposition.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago politician, from Cook County, often called “Crook County.” This may explain the above.

And yet, the fraud was reported by Acorn and there was not a single case of someone illegally registered who actually voted.

Hey, when Kara shows up to vote, then complain.

Doesn't the right have something better to do? Maybe work out a real health care plan? Come up with a "winning" strategy. Do something good for the country for once?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6,210 charges filed against unions, over a period during which 16,179 violations were committed by employers. AKA, you're more that twice as likely to have your employer commit a labor law violation.

I think I gotcha again.

My original post on this topic was a counter to the smug "Because we know that employers would never ever intimidate their employees."

Know who said that? Right...you.

So I have correctly documented that 38.4% (is my math getting better?) of the cases were brought by employers, and since it would be beneath your intellect to claim that there are only twice as many employees as employers, it would seem that there should be far more NLRB complaints by employees.

I'll guess that there are 100 employees for every employer, but let's stipulate, say 10 to one. Certainly ther should be more than two to one charges by employees.

Nicht wahr?

That's working on the assumption that all cases brought against unions were brought by employers, is it not?

So you're sticking to equal numbers of employers and employees?

Or that employees are claiming that that the union members are claiming coersio by their union?

I think that's called 'clutching at straws."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to go for run, but I'll be sure to check in later.

OK, this was fun.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

On June 20, 2007 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today called for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For decades, the process of a work force becoming unionized has been based on a secret-ballot election. First, workers with interest in a union sign authorization cards. If 30 percent sign, the National Labor Relations Board schedules an election that the government agency supervises. A majority vote allows in a union. If this bill wins, and it will under an Obama administration, union officials would be allowed to hover over a worker seeking his signature on a card. How many would be able to resist the intimidation? Nothing subtle here.
Obama has signaled that he would sign onto a new “fairness doctrine,” which would curtail right-wing views expressed on radio. But no such restrictions for the left-wing print media or main stream broadcast TV. Repression?
The Obama campaign has supported ACORN, which fraudulently registers multitudes of individuals who are judged to vote Democrat. In effect, repressing the opposition.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago politician, from Cook County, often called “Crook County.” This may explain the above.

And yet, the fraud was reported by Acorn and there was not a single case of someone illegally registered who actually voted.

Hey, when Kara shows up to vote, then complain.

Doesn't the right have something better to do? Maybe work out a real health care plan? Come up with a "winning" strategy. Do something good for the country for once?

You know, rdeanie-weenie, I used to think that I could only count on you for the bumper-sticker level of comperhension, but now we must add to your resume "left-wing bogus talking points."

Congrats on the down-grade.

"ACORN workers in at least nine states have been charged with various crimes related to voter fraud.

At least 50 people have been arrested in connection with ACORN-related voter fraud. Plus four arrest warrants outstanding in Florida.

At least 30 of these cases ended with guilty pleas."

For a full list, consult the following:

State of ACORN Investigations : Glenn Beck – The 912 Project

"Here in Clark County, Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said last year he saw "rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week," with some 48 percent of those forms being "clearly fraudulent."

Mr. Lomax noted ACORN had hired 59 inmates from a work-release program at a nearby prison and that some inmates who had been convicted of identity theft had been made supervisors. "That led some local wags to joke that at least ACORN was hiring specialists to do their work," reported John Fund at The Politico, last November.

ACORN's 2008 Las Vegas field director, Christopher Edwards, pleased guilty last spring to two gross misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit compensation for registration of voters, in a deal that saw him agree to testify against fellow defendants. "
EDITORIAL: Reid blocks ACORN probe - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com

"During the election cycle, ACORN was cited in at least twelve states on suspicious voter registration activities, and recently in St. Louis, MO a former ACORN worker was indicted. The real story has not been reported yet, the truth is that the voter registration fraud allegations are pure misdirection by ACORN. They welcome these type of allegation because it allows them to operate while holding up minorities and screaming about racial discrimination and voter intimidation."
Anita MonCrief: ACORN Part IV: The Payoff

And you contend that these folks were turned in by ACORN?

Documentation?

Could it be that you are one of those that Lenin referred to as "useful idiots," and will say anything that will support your left-wing masters? Could be?


"...Maybe work out a real health care plan? Come up with a "winning" strategy."

How about 1) Tort reform
2) Allow all 1300 insurance companies to sell in every state, it's called competition
3) Eliminating mandates for insurance,and allow folks to decide what they want to be covered for, a la auto insurance.

Winning strategy? Luckily for the right, there is the greatest motivator they have had in years: Barack Hussein Obama, mmm mmm mmm

 

[MaggieMae]

Ah yes, don't we all just love these?

The message was, "We better not see you on again," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

Gee, could it be? Nah, but my five-year old grandson still wants to know: Could this have been a plant?

The trillion dollar question these days is whatever happened to the everyday common sense THINKER!!??

 

[MaggieMae]

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

Reporting from Washington - At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

The Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, "We better not see you on again," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."


Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News -- latimes.com
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

And in a related story, an analyst on NPR made the mistake of criticizing President Obama (Peace be on him) and was forced to apologize.

You know NPR, the public radio station that all of us pay for.

"It's pretty unremarkable to describe the Obama White House's growing enemies list -- the insurance companies, Chamber of Commerce, Fox News -- as "Nixonian." But there's one place where, if you venture such an opinion, you'd better be prepared to apologize -- quickly and profusely."

NPR analyst compares Obama to Nixon, issues full apology | Washington Examiner

So? Was it the White House who asked Rubin to apologize or was it the listeners who complained. The latter.

 

[MaggieMae]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

On June 20, 2007 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today called for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For decades, the process of a work force becoming unionized has been based on a secret-ballot election. First, workers with interest in a union sign authorization cards. If 30 percent sign, the National Labor Relations Board schedules an election that the government agency supervises. A majority vote allows in a union. If this bill wins, and it will under an Obama administration, union officials would be allowed to hover over a worker seeking his signature on a card. How many would be able to resist the intimidation? Nothing subtle here.
Obama has signaled that he would sign onto a new “fairness doctrine,” which would curtail right-wing views expressed on radio. But no such restrictions for the left-wing print media or main stream broadcast TV. Repression?
The Obama campaign has supported ACORN, which fraudulently registers multitudes of individuals who are judged to vote Democrat. In effect, repressing the opposition.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago politician, from Cook County, often called “Crook County.” This may explain the above.

Good grief, you people are downright hilarious...

 

[MaggieMae]

Because we know employers would never ever intimidate their employees.

What a wonderful opportunity my friend Polk gives us for, as our President, Peace be on him, calls a 'teaching moment.'

1. We conservatives believe that data informs policy. So I will provide data that our friend may not bee aware of (sorry to end a sentence with a preposition).

2. Here is evidence that our friends on the left are simply uninformed, and not aware of all that we on the right are.

3. Further evidence that the minions of the left cannot see the big picture. Their manipulators feed them one little bit at a time, and they accept them in that form, as I suspect our friend Polk would be taken aback if the administration said "Hey, let's all be communists from now on!"

4. And, watch this space for furthe developments, as I predict that Polk will simply ignore the evidence about to be unveiled.


Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)
Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 81% know about union membership that the 9% don’t? One can only conjecture.

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

Second, instead of improving workers’ benefits, unions have become political action committees: take money from workers to give to politicians to help them get elected, and then politicians pass laws that make ‘capitalism’ moot. SEIU President Andy Stern: “We spent a fortune t elect Barack Obama- $60.7 million, to be exact- and we’re proud of it.”

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

Ahhhh, the SEIU, champions of the underdog.... the guys who beat up a black guy selling flags at a protest meeting. Whose own President said (and I quote) "We use the power of persuasion. If that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power."

Please link where and when Obama ever made such a statement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah yes, don't we all just love these?

The message was, "We better not see you on again," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

Gee, could it be? Nah, but my five-year old grandson still wants to know: Could this have been a plant?

The trillion dollar question these days is whatever happened to the everyday common sense THINKER!!??

What's with you tonight, Maggie?

You in a rush?

Sentence fragments?

You usually do a better job of expressing yoursefl, of framing the argument.

With a reference to my NYYankees, how about stepping up to the plate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

And in a related story, an analyst on NPR made the mistake of criticizing President Obama (Peace be on him) and was forced to apologize.

You know NPR, the public radio station that all of us pay for.

"It's pretty unremarkable to describe the Obama White House's growing enemies list -- the insurance companies, Chamber of Commerce, Fox News -- as "Nixonian." But there's one place where, if you venture such an opinion, you'd better be prepared to apologize -- quickly and profusely."

NPR analyst compares Obama to Nixon, issues full apology | Washington Examiner

So? Was it the White House who asked Rubin to apologize or was it the listeners who complained. The latter.

I get it: it's going to be the "I don't get it, I can't connect the dots."

Now, if you were rdeanie-weenie, or wingy, I could believe that you don't get the point. But I know that you see

1. that the listeners didn't call Rudin directly, management did

2. that the reliably liberal NPR, paid partly with federal funds collected from liberals and conservatives, doesn't allow freedom of expression if it exposes a liberal President

3. would not even consider any apology if the President was a Republican

4. that the events would be quite different if the President in question had been George Bush; it would be more like 'I was only telling the truth.'

Now tell me that I am not correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

On June 20, 2007 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today called for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For decades, the process of a work force becoming unionized has been based on a secret-ballot election. First, workers with interest in a union sign authorization cards. If 30 percent sign, the National Labor Relations Board schedules an election that the government agency supervises. A majority vote allows in a union. If this bill wins, and it will under an Obama administration, union officials would be allowed to hover over a worker seeking his signature on a card. How many would be able to resist the intimidation? Nothing subtle here.
Obama has signaled that he would sign onto a new “fairness doctrine,” which would curtail right-wing views expressed on radio. But no such restrictions for the left-wing print media or main stream broadcast TV. Repression?
The Obama campaign has supported ACORN, which fraudulently registers multitudes of individuals who are judged to vote Democrat. In effect, repressing the opposition.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago politician, from Cook County, often called “Crook County.” This may explain the above.

Good grief, you people are downright hilarious...

Don't be afraid Mag.

Spit it out.

Who are 'you people' and what's with the date?

Is this more to your liking:
"Will Obama Revive the Fairness Doctrine? [Michael G. Franc]


Those of us who fear a revival, directly or indirectly, of the Fairness Doctrine need to be aware of the following exchanges that occurred during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s January 15th confirmation hearing for Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder. The first comes from the senior Republican on the panel, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania:

SPECTER: Mr. Holder, there had been suggestions for a revival of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and my question to you is do you think that as a matter of public policy, the so-called Fairness Doctrine ought to be reinstated?


HOLDER: Senator, that's a toughie. I've not given an awful lot of thought to. If I could perhaps submit an answer to you in writing, I would have an opportunity to think about that. I wouldn't want to commit myself to something and not give you the benefit of what is my best thinking on that.

And this exchange occurred between Holder and Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions:

SESSIONS: In an April 2004 speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal group, you were at — where you asked the audience what it could do to bring about a liberal renaissance, which is a legitimate political effort to promote your beliefs.


And you singled out the media and criticized them for impeding liberal views and said, and quote, “In a short term, this will not be an easy task with the main stream media somewhat [cowed] by conservative critiques and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner. And you know what I mean there. The means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”
Will Obama Revive the Fairness Doctrine? - Michael G. Franc - The Corner on National Review Online

I guess you'll sputter something about seeing no connection between AG Holder and President Obama.

Is the date January 23, 2009 OK with you Mag?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a wonderful opportunity my friend Polk gives us for, as our President, Peace be on him, calls a 'teaching moment.'

1. We conservatives believe that data informs policy. So I will provide data that our friend may not bee aware of (sorry to end a sentence with a preposition).

2. Here is evidence that our friends on the left are simply uninformed, and not aware of all that we on the right are.

3. Further evidence that the minions of the left cannot see the big picture. Their manipulators feed them one little bit at a time, and they accept them in that form, as I suspect our friend Polk would be taken aback if the administration said "Hey, let's all be communists from now on!"

4. And, watch this space for furthe developments, as I predict that Polk will simply ignore the evidence about to be unveiled.


Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)
Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 81% know about union membership that the 9% don’t? One can only conjecture.

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

Second, instead of improving workers’ benefits, unions have become political action committees: take money from workers to give to politicians to help them get elected, and then politicians pass laws that make ‘capitalism’ moot. SEIU President Andy Stern: “We spent a fortune t elect Barack Obama- $60.7 million, to be exact- and we’re proud of it.”

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

Ahhhh, the SEIU, champions of the underdog.... the guys who beat up a black guy selling flags at a protest meeting. Whose own President said (and I quote) "We use the power of persuasion. If that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power."

Please link where and when Obama ever made such a statement.

Maggie, what is wrong with you tonight?

You been drinkin'

The post clearly refers to Andy Stern, President SEIU, and is standard boilerplate language used by union rabble rousers.

See:

"Walter Reuther (1907-1970), president of the United Auto Workers, wrote in January 1958 about auto contract talks: “In practice this means that collective bargaining decisions must be based upon economic facts rather than economic power, for only as the power of persuasion replaces the persuasion of power can collective bargaining be made a socially responsible and constructive force.”
The Big Apple: “Only as the power of persuasion replaces the persuasion of power can collective bargaining…”

And since President Obama's (short) career is intertwined with ACORN, SEIU and other blue collar organizations, you can probably find similar language from him.


WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH MAGGIE???