Death Knell For The Democrat Party???

[Wry Catcher]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

i'd like to hear stories from people, past and present, if and how they were "persuaded" to vote.
and who employs the two million seiu members.

good one PC.

I've been an SEIU member since 2004. I have never felt compelled to vote for any candidate supported by the SEIU.

I applaud your independence.

But, unfortunately, you're missing the point.

This point:

" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election


You have no say in where those $millions go.

. Does being a member of SEIU spell independence ?

I have zero objections to the legitimate role that unions have to play.

They are authorized by the Constitution, and, correctly, level the playing field between employee and employer.

But....the federal government needs to recuse itself from the relationship as it is too susceptible to the sort of bribery that Democrats thrive on.

Which members of the USSC declared that campaign donations are protected by the First Amendment, and have allowed the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson to put an enormous amount of money into our electoral process? Oh yeah, the Conservative members.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

Yep, this Democrat knows why; you are a neo fascist and a wannabe authoritarian. You are much like Trump, a narcissist and a hater of all people who question your rants, rants liberally (lol) spread throughout in the effort to control the future ("Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past" Orwell, 1984). Exactly what the current iteration of conservatives seek to do.

Dear Wry Catcher
So let PoliticalChic represent herself, her colleagues, and others who feel her statements speak for them.

And likewise, let the LGBT and others on the left speak for themselves
and defend and exercise their own political beliefs they are equally entitled to.

If we all did this, respect each other's beliefs and exercise under the Constitution,
maybe we wouldn't waste time and energy and resources
fighting to silence each other.

Why can't we allow all parties to develop and pursue their own platform policies that represent their memberships?

Church groups are able to develop and fund their own programs.

Why not require the same of Political Parties?
And leave each other alone instead of ramming political beliefs through govt.

The left protests when Republicans push beliefs in right to life.
The right protests with Democrats push beliefs in right to health care.

Isn't it Discrimination by Creed to allow ONE party's beliefs to be
RAMMED THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT and require all taxpayers to fund it
while denying the same to other parties by "separation of church and state"
and religious freedom from govt establishing beliefs?

Shouldn't all parties and their beliefs be treated the same?
And keep them OUT OF GOVT unless the whole public AGREES on a belief to be integrated into public policy.

If the left protests so much,
perhaps we should "practice what we preach"
and keep our personal political bias and agenda
out of public policy. If we don't like opponents pushing their agenda on us!

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing

'Good men' and good women did something on November 8th.


The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber
Romans 13:11

And, we did.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You pay union dues because your employer has agreed to accept that union as the agency for negotiating labor issues with the employer. That is a condition of employment your employer imposes on you.

Most public employee unions allow members to donate the same amount in terms of dues to approved non profits, and to continue to receive the benefits of their union.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just one more effort to make American workers poorer.

. I agree there has to be representation for the workers against greed and slave labor tactics in which had been proven yet again in this country over the issue of cheap labor tactics being used on the Mexican labor forces who many were here illegally. So who will the representatives be if the unions fall ?? Will it be the federal government to then take over the role of labor representation in this nation where there is none or will the unions shake off their poisonous handlers, re-invent itself, and go back to representing American workers instead of corporate interest or political interest that is tied to corporate interest ?

Dear beagle9

I suggest creating a people's parliament with representation by PARTY
the same way we have Congress with representation by State.

When unions get corrupted with the same elitist top down politics
as we have seen dividing both major parties,
then people have turned to their party leaders to represent them.

And from there, you can see at least TWO or three camps in each party.

The Sanders Democrats split from the Clinton and "limousine liberals"
and then the Greens and independents against those two colluding
have a third pool of constituents sold out by both left and right camps and stuck in the middle without representation.

So it may take THREE reps to represent each party that gets fractionalized.

Same with the Republicans divided over
career politicians vs. Tea Party and far right hardliners who won't work with others
Trump bucking the system similar to Libertarians
and moderates willing to compromise with even liberals

If we offer and organize Representation by Party
and allow for AS MANY SPLITS as the parties report among their members,
then we could still use the union system to help workers organize by numbers,
while checking against abuses of power at the same time.

We just offer the same to ALL TAXPAYERS
to organize as huge UNIONS.

Organize by party affiliation, even if they split into smaller groups from
* Socialists and Communist Workers
* Libertarians and Anarchists seeking decriminalization
* Natural Law and Christian Party
* Islamists, Zionists or other political religions
* Veterans Party and Constitutionalists
* Greens and Peace and Justice
* Democrats and LGBT liberals
* Republicans and Corporate free enterprise capitalists
* Independent, no affiliation or mixed affiliation
* Lawyers Judges and Govt reps

Have I left anyone out?

Point of information:

Bernie Sanders is a communist.
I would strongly recommend that everyone review how communists functions, and the result of their regimes.

The book you presented explains why communists rejected communism when they understood what it did and what it was.

Why would you support my thesis, other than to pretend you've read any books????


Gads, you're a fool!!!!!!


For those who vote Communist/Democrat....here's an excellent opus:

“The Anti-Communist Manifestos,” by John V. Fleming

1. The book is about the political struggle known as the Cold War, and the role played by four unusually influential books.
2. For historical purposes, our starting point is that the concept of Marxist Communism is inextricably linked with the Bolshevik coup d'état of 1917 and with the USSR.
3. From its inception, the Soviet State was the object of geat and often sympathetic interest in the West. Many early visitors to the USSR are aptly called ‘pilgrims,’ as opposed to travelers. Pilgrims always know in advance what he is to see, he knows and desires it, and even as he views it he is planning how he will tell the folks back home. In short…objectivity is hardly in play.
   1. Dante could have had this individual in mind, when he told of the of being transported, in the “Divine Comedy,” from time to eternity, from the human to the divine, “from Florence to a people just and sane…And as a pilgrim who delighteth him In gazing round the temple of his vow, And hopes some day to retell how it was,…” The Divine Comedy : Paradiso : Canto XXXI by Alighieri Dante @ Classic Reader
   2. What better description of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, pioneering British Socialists, founders of the Fabians. Their enthusiasm for collectivism apparently blinded to its actual practice in the Soviet Union of the 1930’s.
4. But not all were so benighted. It is one of the striking features of anti-Communist literature that its great writers are all former Communists. This feature is compounded when one realizes how few other “antis-“ such as anti-Semites, anti-racists, anti-vivisectionists, or anti-Americans are former Semites, racists, vivisectionists or Americans. What did they learn than turned them 180 degrees?
5. All four of these anti-Communist authors we Communist renegades.
   1. Arthur Koestler
   2. Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs)
   3. Victor Kravchenko
   4. Whittaker Chambers

 

[Wry Catcher]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

Yep, this Democrat knows why; you are a neo fascist and a wannabe authoritarian. You are much like Trump, a narcissist and a hater of all people who question your rants, rants liberally (lol) spread throughout in the effort to control the future ("Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past" Orwell, 1984). Exactly what the current iteration of conservatives seek to do.

Dear Wry Catcher
So let PoliticalChic represent herself, her colleagues, and others who feel her statements speak for them.

And likewise, let the LGBT and others on the left speak for themselves
and defend and exercise their own political beliefs they are equally entitled to.

If we all did this, respect each other's beliefs and exercise under the Constitution,
maybe we wouldn't waste time and energy and resources
fighting to silence each other.

Why can't we allow all parties to develop and pursue their own platform policies that represent their memberships?

Church groups are able to develop and fund their own programs.

Why not require the same of Political Parties?
And leave each other alone instead of ramming political beliefs through govt.

The left protests when Republicans push beliefs in right to life.
The right protests with Democrats push beliefs in right to health care.

Isn't it Discrimination by Creed to allow ONE party's beliefs to be
RAMMED THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT and require all taxpayers to fund it
while denying the same to other parties by "separation of church and state"
and religious freedom from govt establishing beliefs?

Shouldn't all parties and their beliefs be treated the same?
And keep them OUT OF GOVT unless the whole public AGREES on a belief to be integrated into public policy.

If the left protests so much,
perhaps we should "practice what we preach"
and keep our personal political bias and agenda
out of public policy. If we don't like opponents pushing their agenda on us!

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing

'Good men' and good women did something on November 8th.


The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber
Romans 13:11

And, we did.

That's ^^^ a non sequitur. Trump is a callous conservative, which I consider evil. Those who voted for him are not necessarily evil people, many are biddable and fell to the words of a demagogue.

I speak out for those who will suffer under the authoritarian leadership of a man unfit to be POTUS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

Dear PoliticalChic
1. Thanks for enumerating the several points this issue affects.
You do a great job and I will try to follow your example when I unload on fellow Democrats
and what it will take us to fix the messes caused by party politics.
You go!

2. I still hope I can organize and launch a national class action over the rights violated
and damages caused by the unconstitutional ACA mandates, bailouts, and govt shutdown in protest.
I est. taxpayers are owed billions if not trillions, if we'd all come together as a CLASS and demand refunds and restitution for the imposition
on our finances and freedoms that weren't justified as we were not convicted of crimes to lose our liberties.
Any "compelling interest" could have been addressed with PRIVATE LLC and business/nonprofit reforms without relying on govt to try to force it
which it has no constitutional authority to do WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT FIRST PASSED BY THE SEVERAL STATES TO GIVE THAT FUNCTION TO GOVT.

3. As for labor pools, socialist and other worker parties and unions
PoliticalChic I would say these are the people who could jump on board with business and job plans
and work WITH TRUMP and Trump AND BERNIE supporters to jumpstart economic expansion, starting with schools
that can train new workers to mentor under the experienced laborers retiring and aging out of the system.
Both Trump and Sanders face restitution they owe for abuses and/or academic fraud.
They can use the defunct and abused school system to organize workers
by skill level, match them to business sponsors, and fund education by on the job training
and paid internships so students can work their way through school. Including medical
and nursing school so this provides "universal health care" at the same time we train the staff
and expand the facilities needed to serve local populations to reach all people at affordable sustainable levels.

Together, the workers and small business folks on LEFT and RIGHT
can overcome the oppression by class politics pushed by elitist Democrats
playing the same corporate games they accuse opponents of doing.

Just like the ants and the grasshoppers, the ants need to unite all the anthills
and chase off the bullies exploiting that labor. If we don't unite, that's how we
all become victims to partisan politics pitting the rich and poor against each other.

The workers at the bottom are the key to uniting around sustainable business plans
and development across the states and in each district, focused around local schools and supporting business interests.

For unions, the teachers unions and police unions are the key to stabilizing each district,
uniting with their local communities, taking back control of programs, property and policies
and stopping the govt abuses and waste by politicians making profits and careers off
keeping these people divided against each other instead of organizing and governing their own resources!

Thanks PC
If you can please help me take this idea above
and explain it in conservative talking points,
we can lobby both left and right to unite,
* both Sanders workers supporters and Trump supporters,
* both teachers unions and police unions,
* both health care and prison reform lobbyists,
and take back state resources and local authority
instead of handing more and more over to federal govt where it gets abused.

How can we write this up to appeal to both Left and Right
to unite and create jobs for workers and students to fix these problems and abuses?

1. The most basic point is this: the Constitution allows unions, as shown in the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. The problem is two fold:
a. There is no authority for a federal support of unions, as the nation was founded on federalism.
b. How easily politicians are bought and bribed via union money.

3. And that is why the Janus case...if the Supreme Court chooses to hear it, is so significant to the Democrats, and their...'prosperity.'

4. Union membership, nationally, has fallen precipitously. The reason seems obvious to me, and probably to union leadership as well.
That why the socialists/Democrats tried to pass the 'Employee Free Choice Act'...I'll write a post about it in this thread.

5. And this:The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.

Thank you PoliticalChic well stated
And SIMILAR abuses and oppression occur with CORPORATE interests run amok
abusing their COLLECTIVE authority and influence/resources at the expense of
INDIVIDUAL due process and protections of people at the bottom. Very similar problems in structure that lend to abuse of power.

"when the power over the many is concentrated in the hands of a few"

QUESTION PC:
Would this problem with Unions and Corporate abuses be checked
if we held ALL collective organizations to the SAME bill of rights and code of ethics
we use to check against GOVT abuses of power and collective resources:

www.ethics-commission.net

Could we go through
* teachers unions
* police unions
* workers unions
and agree to teach ALL CITIZENS the Bill of Rights and the Code of Ethics
to check against abuses by ANY such LARGE organization whether the threat comes from
* corporate abuses
* union abuses
* govt abuses
* religious abuses
* nonprofit abuses
* school abuses
* political party abuses!
etc. etc. etc.

If the SAME corruption and abuses happen with UNIONS,
as with large Corporations, large Religious Organizations (ie Catholic priests hiding abuses behind church policies,
or Jihadists hiding behind Muslim charities),
AND ESPECIALLY ABUSES BY POLITICAL PARTIES
TO PUSH BELIEFS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY THROUGH GOVT

Shouldn't we address ALL abuses in ALL collective organizations across the board?
Woudn't America benefit from having ALL citizens educated on Constitutional limits, rights and process
to prevent abuses by govt or by any other entity or individual so we can have consistent law enforcement and ethics?

"Would this problem with Unions and Corporate abuses be checked
if we held ALL collective organizations to the SAME bill of rights and code of ethics
we use to check against GOVT abuses of power and collective resources:"

We have the instruction manual.

The Constitution.

'Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.'
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."


Article 1, section 8 is explicit.


It was thrown out by the 32nd President.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just one more effort to make American workers poorer.

. I agree there has to be representation for the workers against greed and slave labor tactics in which had been proven yet again in this country over the issue of cheap labor tactics being used on the Mexican labor forces who many were here illegally. So who will the representatives be if the unions fall ?? Will it be the federal government to then take over the role of labor representation in this nation where there is none or will the unions shake off their poisonous handlers, re-invent itself, and go back to representing American workers instead of corporate interest or political interest that is tied to corporate interest ?

Dear beagle9

I suggest creating a people's parliament with representation by PARTY
the same way we have Congress with representation by State.

When unions get corrupted with the same elitist top down politics
as we have seen dividing both major parties,
then people have turned to their party leaders to represent them.

And from there, you can see at least TWO or three camps in each party.

The Sanders Democrats split from the Clinton and "limousine liberals"
and then the Greens and independents against those two colluding
have a third pool of constituents sold out by both left and right camps and stuck in the middle without representation.

So it may take THREE reps to represent each party that gets fractionalized.

Same with the Republicans divided over
career politicians vs. Tea Party and far right hardliners who won't work with others
Trump bucking the system similar to Libertarians
and moderates willing to compromise with even liberals

If we offer and organize Representation by Party
and allow for AS MANY SPLITS as the parties report among their members,
then we could still use the union system to help workers organize by numbers,
while checking against abuses of power at the same time.

We just offer the same to ALL TAXPAYERS
to organize as huge UNIONS.

Organize by party affiliation, even if they split into smaller groups from
* Socialists and Communist Workers
* Libertarians and Anarchists seeking decriminalization
* Natural Law and Christian Party
* Islamists, Zionists or other political religions
* Veterans Party and Constitutionalists
* Greens and Peace and Justice
* Democrats and LGBT liberals
* Republicans and Corporate free enterprise capitalists
* Independent, no affiliation or mixed affiliation
* Lawyers Judges and Govt reps

Have I left anyone out?

Point of information:

Bernie Sanders is a communist.
I would strongly recommend that everyone review how communists functions, and the result of their regimes.

The book you presented explains why communists rejected communism when they understood what it did and what it was.

Why would you support my thesis, other than to pretend you've read any books????


Gads, you're a fool!!!!!!


For those who vote Communist/Democrat....here's an excellent opus:

“The Anti-Communist Manifestos,” by John V. Fleming

1. The book is about the political struggle known as the Cold War, and the role played by four unusually influential books.
2. For historical purposes, our starting point is that the concept of Marxist Communism is inextricably linked with the Bolshevik coup d'état of 1917 and with the USSR.
3. From its inception, the Soviet State was the object of geat and often sympathetic interest in the West. Many early visitors to the USSR are aptly called ‘pilgrims,’ as opposed to travelers. Pilgrims always know in advance what he is to see, he knows and desires it, and even as he views it he is planning how he will tell the folks back home. In short…objectivity is hardly in play.
   1. Dante could have had this individual in mind, when he told of the of being transported, in the “Divine Comedy,” from time to eternity, from the human to the divine, “from Florence to a people just and sane…And as a pilgrim who delighteth him In gazing round the temple of his vow, And hopes some day to retell how it was,…” The Divine Comedy : Paradiso : Canto XXXI by Alighieri Dante @ Classic Reader
   2. What better description of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, pioneering British Socialists, founders of the Fabians. Their enthusiasm for collectivism apparently blinded to its actual practice in the Soviet Union of the 1930’s.
4. But not all were so benighted. It is one of the striking features of anti-Communist literature that its great writers are all former Communists. This feature is compounded when one realizes how few other “antis-“ such as anti-Semites, anti-racists, anti-vivisectionists, or anti-Americans are former Semites, racists, vivisectionists or Americans. What did they learn than turned them 180 degrees?
5. All four of these anti-Communist authors we Communist renegades.
   1. Arthur Koestler
   2. Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs)
   3. Victor Kravchenko
   4. Whittaker Chambers

The God that Failed - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

i'd like to hear stories from people, past and present, if and how they were "persuaded" to vote.
and who employs the two million seiu members.

good one PC.

I've been an SEIU member since 2004. I have never felt compelled to vote for any candidate supported by the SEIU.

I applaud your independence.

But, unfortunately, you're missing the point.

This point:

" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election


You have no say in where those $millions go.

. Does being a member of SEIU spell independence ?

I have zero objections to the legitimate role that unions have to play.

They are authorized by the Constitution, and, correctly, level the playing field between employee and employer.

But....the federal government needs to recuse itself from the relationship as it is too susceptible to the sort of bribery that Democrats thrive on.

Which members of the USSC declared that campaign donations are protected by the First Amendment, and have allowed the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson to put an enormous amount of money into our electoral process? Oh yeah, the Conservative members.

"....allowed the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson to put an enormous amount of money into our electoral process? "


I love when you post, as your boilerplate propaganda is so easily demolished.

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!

“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin




Koch only 59th biggest contributors...

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014
LEGEND:

Republican

Democrat

On the fence

= Between 40% and 59% to both parties
= Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%)
= Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%)
= Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)

Top Organization Contributors | OpenSecrets




Ready to admit that you're a moron?

 

[danielpalos]

It is not democrats that want the rich to get richer faster and the poor to get poorer, via Institutional means; it is, the republicans and their President.

 

[PoliticalChic]

. I agree there has to be representation for the workers against greed and slave labor tactics in which had been proven yet again in this country over the issue of cheap labor tactics being used on the Mexican labor forces who many were here illegally. So who will the representatives be if the unions fall ?? Will it be the federal government to then take over the role of labor representation in this nation where there is none or will the unions shake off their poisonous handlers, re-invent itself, and go back to representing American workers instead of corporate interest or political interest that is tied to corporate interest ?

Dear beagle9

I suggest creating a people's parliament with representation by PARTY
the same way we have Congress with representation by State.

When unions get corrupted with the same elitist top down politics
as we have seen dividing both major parties,
then people have turned to their party leaders to represent them.

And from there, you can see at least TWO or three camps in each party.

The Sanders Democrats split from the Clinton and "limousine liberals"
and then the Greens and independents against those two colluding
have a third pool of constituents sold out by both left and right camps and stuck in the middle without representation.

So it may take THREE reps to represent each party that gets fractionalized.

Same with the Republicans divided over
career politicians vs. Tea Party and far right hardliners who won't work with others
Trump bucking the system similar to Libertarians
and moderates willing to compromise with even liberals

If we offer and organize Representation by Party
and allow for AS MANY SPLITS as the parties report among their members,
then we could still use the union system to help workers organize by numbers,
while checking against abuses of power at the same time.

We just offer the same to ALL TAXPAYERS
to organize as huge UNIONS.

Organize by party affiliation, even if they split into smaller groups from
* Socialists and Communist Workers
* Libertarians and Anarchists seeking decriminalization
* Natural Law and Christian Party
* Islamists, Zionists or other political religions
* Veterans Party and Constitutionalists
* Greens and Peace and Justice
* Democrats and LGBT liberals
* Republicans and Corporate free enterprise capitalists
* Independent, no affiliation or mixed affiliation
* Lawyers Judges and Govt reps

Have I left anyone out?

Point of information:

Bernie Sanders is a communist.
I would strongly recommend that everyone review how communists functions, and the result of their regimes.

The book you presented explains why communists rejected communism when they understood what it did and what it was.

Why would you support my thesis, other than to pretend you've read any books????


Gads, you're a fool!!!!!!


For those who vote Communist/Democrat....here's an excellent opus:

“The Anti-Communist Manifestos,” by John V. Fleming

1. The book is about the political struggle known as the Cold War, and the role played by four unusually influential books.
2. For historical purposes, our starting point is that the concept of Marxist Communism is inextricably linked with the Bolshevik coup d'état of 1917 and with the USSR.
3. From its inception, the Soviet State was the object of geat and often sympathetic interest in the West. Many early visitors to the USSR are aptly called ‘pilgrims,’ as opposed to travelers. Pilgrims always know in advance what he is to see, he knows and desires it, and even as he views it he is planning how he will tell the folks back home. In short…objectivity is hardly in play.
   1. Dante could have had this individual in mind, when he told of the of being transported, in the “Divine Comedy,” from time to eternity, from the human to the divine, “from Florence to a people just and sane…And as a pilgrim who delighteth him In gazing round the temple of his vow, And hopes some day to retell how it was,…” The Divine Comedy : Paradiso : Canto XXXI by Alighieri Dante @ Classic Reader
   2. What better description of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, pioneering British Socialists, founders of the Fabians. Their enthusiasm for collectivism apparently blinded to its actual practice in the Soviet Union of the 1930’s.
4. But not all were so benighted. It is one of the striking features of anti-Communist literature that its great writers are all former Communists. This feature is compounded when one realizes how few other “antis-“ such as anti-Semites, anti-racists, anti-vivisectionists, or anti-Americans are former Semites, racists, vivisectionists or Americans. What did they learn than turned them 180 degrees?
5. All four of these anti-Communist authors we Communist renegades.
   1. Arthur Koestler
   2. Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs)
   3. Victor Kravchenko
   4. Whittaker Chambers

The God that Failed - Wikipedia

You didn't read the book, you fool....you didn't even read what Wikipedia says.

This:
"The God That Failed is a 1949 book[1] which collects together six essays with the testimonies of a number of famous ex-communists, who were writers and journalists. The common theme of the essays is the authors' disillusionment with and abandonment of communism."


Exactly what I said.



Sooooo....how many times have I caught you lying in this thread alone???
Burnishes your Liberal credentials, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under the 32nd President, the United States abandoned the Constitution, and veered, precipitously, to the Left.

With the country gripped by fear, the Depression, and the Supreme Court cowed by his threats, FDR nationalized support for labor unions and placed them, perpetually in the Democrat corner.



9. Democrats have never been shy about ignoring law and tradition when it works to their benefit.
FDR, a great politician, but less of an American.... made certain to tilt the scale in favor of unions in direct contravention of the United States Constitution.


On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government.
The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens. The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936.
Manly,"The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 68-69



Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector.
With Friends Like These




Under Democrats, a pillar of the America of the Founders went into the trash bin: federalism.
Now, a powerful central government, the mark of communism, socialism, Fascism, and Nazism, could reach into every state and order it to obey its commands.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just one more effort to make American workers poorer.

. I agree there has to be representation for the workers against greed and slave labor tactics in which had been proven yet again in this country over the issue of cheap labor tactics being used on the Mexican labor forces who many were here illegally. So who will the representatives be if the unions fall ?? Will it be the federal government to then take over the role of labor representation in this nation where there is none or will the unions shake off their poisonous handlers, re-invent itself, and go back to representing American workers instead of corporate interest or political interest that is tied to corporate interest ?

Post #52 highlights exactly when the federal government invaded and co-opted the private economy.

 

[jknowgood]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

Free full body massage with happy ending for right wing chics that want to, go left!

Madonna will give blow jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

2 million words or less please

Sorry Bassman007
1. Problems caused by Democrats are TOO EXTENSIVE to put into a few words and expect to do justice.
Unconstitutional conflicts of interest enabled or funded by Democrats have caused abuses and damaged on ALL LEVELS and areas of govt.

2. As a Democrat myself who has struggled to check and correct abuses by my own party leaders and policies,
I have a worse problem trying to "summarize" the solutions effectively.

As a Green leaning progressive Democrat and Constitutionalist, I have to defend PoliticalChic
and applaud her attempts that are better than mine.

At least she ENUMERATES the several points that are impacted with each issue the Democrats have FU(BAR).

3. Bassman007 if you want issues with Democrats
to be short and to the point, as the Rightwing are able to shout over the radio,
THEN GET THE DEMOCRATS TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

If we AGREED to follow the
* 10 Articles in the Bill of Rights and
* 10 Articles in the Code of Ethics,
That's all we'd have to CITE and hit the points home in 200 words or fewer!

But as long as liberal Democrats don't follow the RULE OF LAW
but skirt around and make everything "morally relativistic" and treat each case as special rights
that "REQUIRE THEIR OWN 2,000 PAGES OF LEGISLATION TO FU" then we have BIG GOVT,
And BIG MESSES to clean up that affect
* federal levels of govt
* states rights and levels of govt
* city and county govt
* individual rights and freedoms that should have remained free from govt interference

I WISH OTHER DEMOCRATS WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME LAWS AS CONSERVATIVES
USE TO LIMIT GOVT.

IF WE ONLY RECOGNIZED POLICIES POINTS AND PRINCIPLES THE PUBLIC AGREES ON
AND CALL THAT PUBLIC POLICY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVT TO BE IN CHARGE OF,
THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

Until then, I can try to summarize what is wrong and how to correct it.
But I go way over the average audience attention span or experience.

PoliticalChic at least can explain it in OUTLINED POINTS that reach
some audiences.

Sorry you are not able to keep up, but compared with me,
she does a pretty good job trying to address a huge web of govt issues FU by the Democrats.

Bassman007 the problems are far-reaching
and can't be fixed in 30 second sound bytes.
Sorry!

dear, the right wing has, nothing but repeal. That is a major problem not a minor problem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. While not wishing ill to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I can't help posting this, from the OP, again- it brings a smile to my face!

If the Court decides to hear Janus, and it passes muster......


"But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party.

Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”


She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble.

We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


Yippeee!


Could be Christmas coming early!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

Dear PoliticalChic
1. Thanks for enumerating the several points this issue affects.
You do a great job and I will try to follow your example when I unload on fellow Democrats
and what it will take us to fix the messes caused by party politics.
You go!

2. I still hope I can organize and launch a national class action over the rights violated
and damages caused by the unconstitutional ACA mandates, bailouts, and govt shutdown in protest.
I est. taxpayers are owed billions if not trillions, if we'd all come together as a CLASS and demand refunds and restitution for the imposition
on our finances and freedoms that weren't justified as we were not convicted of crimes to lose our liberties.
Any "compelling interest" could have been addressed with PRIVATE LLC and business/nonprofit reforms without relying on govt to try to force it
which it has no constitutional authority to do WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT FIRST PASSED BY THE SEVERAL STATES TO GIVE THAT FUNCTION TO GOVT.

3. As for labor pools, socialist and other worker parties and unions
PoliticalChic I would say these are the people who could jump on board with business and job plans
and work WITH TRUMP and Trump AND BERNIE supporters to jumpstart economic expansion, starting with schools
that can train new workers to mentor under the experienced laborers retiring and aging out of the system.
Both Trump and Sanders face restitution they owe for abuses and/or academic fraud.
They can use the defunct and abused school system to organize workers
by skill level, match them to business sponsors, and fund education by on the job training
and paid internships so students can work their way through school. Including medical
and nursing school so this provides "universal health care" at the same time we train the staff
and expand the facilities needed to serve local populations to reach all people at affordable sustainable levels.

Together, the workers and small business folks on LEFT and RIGHT
can overcome the oppression by class politics pushed by elitist Democrats
playing the same corporate games they accuse opponents of doing.

Just like the ants and the grasshoppers, the ants need to unite all the anthills
and chase off the bullies exploiting that labor. If we don't unite, that's how we
all become victims to partisan politics pitting the rich and poor against each other.

The workers at the bottom are the key to uniting around sustainable business plans
and development across the states and in each district, focused around local schools and supporting business interests.

For unions, the teachers unions and police unions are the key to stabilizing each district,
uniting with their local communities, taking back control of programs, property and policies
and stopping the govt abuses and waste by politicians making profits and careers off
keeping these people divided against each other instead of organizing and governing their own resources!

Thanks PC
If you can please help me take this idea above
and explain it in conservative talking points,
we can lobby both left and right to unite,
* both Sanders workers supporters and Trump supporters,
* both teachers unions and police unions,
* both health care and prison reform lobbyists,
and take back state resources and local authority
instead of handing more and more over to federal govt where it gets abused.

How can we write this up to appeal to both Left and Right
to unite and create jobs for workers and students to fix these problems and abuses?

1. The most basic point is this: the Constitution allows unions, as shown in the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. The problem is two fold:
a. There is no authority for a federal support of unions, as the nation was founded on federalism.
b. How easily politicians are bought and bribed via union money.

3. And that is why the Janus case...if the Supreme Court chooses to hear it, is so significant to the Democrats, and their...'prosperity.'

4. Union membership, nationally, has fallen precipitously. The reason seems obvious to me, and probably to union leadership as well.
That why the socialists/Democrats tried to pass the 'Employee Free Choice Act'...I'll write a post about it in this thread.

5. And this:The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.

"That why the socialists/Democrats tried to pass the 'Employee Free Choice Act'...I'll write a post about it in this thread.


This:

One that got away. If the Roosevelt Court didn't do enough damage to the labor-management relationship, the Democrats came up with a plan to assault the relationship by allowing thuggery determine which unions get to represent workers.



11. Democrats and labor unions made every attempt to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would be the very opposite of the name- as was the case with the 'Affordable Care Act, another Democrat boondoggle.

A group of union 'organizers' would surround a worker and 'ask' him to sign a card demanding that their union represent him.

No elections by private ballot.

Sound good? Sound 'Democrat'?



12. "Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker’s true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority." http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-la...oyee-free-choice-act-takes-away-workers-right




13. Hussein Obama, of course, was down wit' it.

"We're ready to take the offense for organized labor. It's time we have a President who didn't choke saying the word 'union.' We need to strengthen our unions by letting them do what they do best --- organize our workers. If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union. It's that simple. We need to stand up to the business lobby that's been getting their friends in Congress and in the White House to block card check. That's why I was one of the leaders fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That's why I'm fighting for it in the Senate. And that's why we'll make it the law of the land when I'm President."
Barack Obama, Dubuque, IA, November 13, 2007


The bill failed in Congress......I guess the unions didn't have enough blackjacks.



Go, Janus!!!!

 

[koshergrl]

The proverbial nail in the coffin will be if Democrats are stupid enough to run 2-time-loser criminal Clinton again, as she will no doubt be screaming once again, "It's STILL my turn".

Bwuhahahahaha....

The Dems are not allowing Clinton to run again, one by one they are blaming Trumps Presidency on her which is actually the truth.

So will Clinton have Biden murdered?

The dems will off Clinton themselves soon enough

They may move on to something worse even...that idiot tigger is rooting for Weiner. I am not making this up.

 

[Bassman007]

The proverbial nail in the coffin will be if Democrats are stupid enough to run 2-time-loser criminal Clinton again, as she will no doubt be screaming once again, "It's STILL my turn".

Bwuhahahahaha....

The Dems are not allowing Clinton to run again, one by one they are blaming Trumps Presidency on her which is actually the truth.

So will Clinton have Biden murdered?

The dems will off Clinton themselves soon enough

They may move on to something worse even...that idiot tigger is rooting for Weiner. I am not making this up.

Who is rooting for the Weinermeister?

 

[koshergrl]

The proverbial nail in the coffin will be if Democrats are stupid enough to run 2-time-loser criminal Clinton again, as she will no doubt be screaming once again, "It's STILL my turn".

Bwuhahahahaha....

The Dems are not allowing Clinton to run again, one by one they are blaming Trumps Presidency on her which is actually the truth.

So will Clinton have Biden murdered?

The dems will off Clinton themselves soon enough

They may move on to something worse even...that idiot tigger is rooting for Weiner. I am not making this up.

Who is rooting for the Weinermeister?

Tiggered

To all my fellow democrats.....we've got to grow balls....imagine this!!

 

[washamericom]

Janus.....a union worker who doesn't agree with the Leftist policies and candidates that his union uses the dues it collects, sues to block forcing him to pay dues!

This sort of thing is what he objects to:
" Andy Stern of the SEIU:
We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it." LaborPains.org | The Price of An Election

Union support is the life's blood of the Democrat Party.
Where did the union get that money, and who decided how it is to be spent?



1. "On June 6, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving plaintiff Mark Janus...is compelled to send part of his paycheck to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, even though he says that the union does not “represent his interests.”

2. Right-to-work proponents are optimistic that the Court will hear the case and that Neil Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, will come down as the fifth vote on the side of employee freedom and overturn the 40-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that states may force public-sector workers to pay union dues, ....




3. The Economic Policy Institute, an organization with strong ties to organized labor, claims that prohibiting fair-share payments could “profoundly affect the ability of millions of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions....


4. [But former] research fellow in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation James Sherk explains that “studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.”





Here come the predictions of the end of the Democrat Party:

5. Even if the Court decides to hear the case, a decision in Janus is most likely a year off. But the unions are planning for the worst-case scenario. California Teachers Association Executive Director Joe Nuñez wrote in January that the CTA should be prepared for a 30 percent to 40 percent membership drop, ....


6. But whatever the membership drop might be, it will be damaging to the unions and could have widespread ramifications. And perhaps no group will be more affected than the Democratic Party. Naomi Walker, an assistant to AFSCME president Lee Saunders and a former Obama administration appointee, said that Janus “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party.”
She added, “The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble. We need the entire labor and progressive movements to stand with us and fight for us.
We may not survive without it—and nor, we fear, will they.”


['tis a consummation devoutly to be wished'....The Bard]


7. "The loss of these unions’ political clout certainly was a factor in giving Donald Trump narrow victories in both states. Should the Court decide for Janus in Janus, neither the apocalypse nor utopia will be upon us, but much will change.


8. Most notably, many government workers will have much freedom than they have now, and the Democratic Party won’t have the same bundles of cash flowing from union piggy banks." Janus and Worker Freedom





In full disclosure....the future of the Supreme Court, and of this nation, was my #1 reason for voting for President Trump.
The Democrats see exactly why.

i'd like to hear stories from people, past and present, if and how they were "persuaded" to vote.
and who employs the two million seiu members.

good one PC.

I've been an SEIU member since 2004. I have never felt compelled to vote for any candidate supported by the SEIU.

have you heard of anyone who has ? respectfully, (i ask).