Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ?????Civil War?????"

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _Droopy »

As the economy continues to collapse and heads toward a major recession/depression, the hyenas combine and attack the carcass in an attempt to get what they can before the cupboards are bare.



http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-va ... civil-war/


Top Teamsters goon James R. Hoffa is threatening to bring “civil war” to Michigan in order to roll back the state’s new right to work law.

After Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed legislation aimed at breaking the labor movement’s death grip on Michigan’s near-comatose economy, Hoffa took to CNN Tuesday to declare, “This is just the first round of a battle that’s going to divide this state.” He added, “We’re going to have a civil war in this state.”

Hoffa also flippantly compared the enactment of the legislation to the attack on Pearl Harbor 71 years ago in which more than 3,000 Americans died.

While the Michigan House of Representatives debated the worker freedom bill on Tuesday, state lawmaker Douglas Geiss (D) took to the floor.

“There will be blood,” he said. “I really wish we had not gone here … I do not see solace, I do not see peace.”

In fact blood has already been spilled. While he was trying to interview right to work opponents outside the legislature in Lansing two days ago, conservative comedian-activist Steven Crowder was beaten up by union members. Apparently the perpetrators were upset that Crowder was asking questions and trying to prevent them from demolishing a temporary shelter that the good government group Americans for Prosperity had erected at the site. Crowder suffered a chipped tooth in the attack.

The new Michigan law strikes a powerful blow for freedom of association in the Wolverine State. Right to work laws weaken unions’ monopolistic control of local labor markets and protect workers’ ability to control their own destinies, free from pressure applied by union bosses. Such legislation allows employees to work without being forced to pay union dues which are often funneled to Democratic candidates and various radical causes. Michigan is now the 24th state to enact right to work legislation.

The state’s new right to work law will benefit the 576,000 Michigan workers who are currently forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, according to the National Right to Work Committee. “Study after study shows that the 23 states that have passed Right to Work laws have a huge advantage in creating jobs and expanding their economies,” the group said before Snyder signed right to work into law in his state.

Organized labor has been taking it on the chin lately in the Great Lakes region, the cradle of the labor movement. After Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker asked government union members last year to contribute a small percentage towards the costs of their pension plans and health care benefits, the Left falsely portrayed him as an enemy of democracy. The unions’ thuggish tactics failed to move lawmakers who approved the budget-balancing plan and Walker easily beat back a union-initiated recall election in June this year.

In last month’s election Michiganders gave a big thumbs-down to Proposal 2, a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution, further enshrining the power of unions and giving them greater control over state expenditures.

But none of this is good enough for Hoffa who would prefer to re-litigate the issue over and over until he obtains the result he desires.

“What they’re doing is basically, betraying democracy,” he said of Big Labor’s opponents. “If there’s any question here, let’s put it on the ballot and let the people of Michigan decide what’s good for Michigan.”

Of course Hoffa and his radical friends in the labor movement don’t actually give a farthing’s cuss about democracy. They care only about winning. To leftists the word democracy itself has a very different meaning than most Americans assign to it. To them democracy is Marxist mobocracy. And it’s only true democracy if they prevail. If they lose, it’s not democracy: the capitalists stole the election or took advantage of the people because they suffer from a mass “false consciousness.” Extremist rabble-rousers like Hoffa won’t claim democracy was served until the lawmakers or voters of Michigan do what leftists want them to do.

Hoffa’s rant comes as the activist Left becomes increasingly militant and cocky in light of the reelection last month of President Obama.

One George Soros-funded pressure group, the Campaign for America’s Future, launched a new website late last month aimed at promoting the same divisive Marxist tactics of class warfare that President Obama successfully used to distract the American people from his abysmal record.

Abandoning the use of political euphemism preached by radical organizing guru Saul Alinsky altogether, CAF named the new Internet site WageClassWar.org.

“America’s growing diversity and its increasingly socially liberal attitudes played a big role in this election,” CAF co-director Robert Borosage explained in a statement.

“But looking back, we are likely to see this as the first of the class warfare elections of our new Gilded Age of extreme inequality,” he said.

“More and more of our elections going forward will feature class warfare – only this time with the middle class fighting back. And candidates are going to have to be clear about which side they are on,” Borosage said.

“In 2012, candidates who supported the economic interests of the many over the few won their elections. Populism was the voice, but economic opportunity was the message. The pundits may wring their hands, but in the future it won’t be values voters, angry white men or soccer moms that win elections. It will be class war.”

Other than preaching class hatred and envy, it’s not entirely clear what tactics the new website will advocate.

Perhaps we should ask Steven Crowder to predict what those tactics might be.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _cinepro »

I can see both sides of the issue. If unions are bargaining on behalf of employees and getting them benefits they otherwise wouldn't have, then I'm not sure it's ethical for employees not to reimburse the union (i.e. pay "dues").

But considering the corruption, waste and politics that permeates unions, I'm not sure it's ethical to force someone to give money to them just because they want a job.

"Right to Work" seems to place the burden of argument on the unions to make their case to the employees. If they can't show the employees that their dues are going to a good cause, then maybe it's their own fault.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _Droopy »

cinepro wrote:I can see both sides of the issue. If unions are bargaining on behalf of employees and getting them benefits they otherwise wouldn't have, then I'm not sure it's ethical for employees not to reimburse the union (i.e. pay "dues").

But considering the corruption, waste and politics that permeates unions, I'm not sure it's ethical to force someone to give money to them just because they want a job.

"Right to Work" seems to place the burden of argument on the unions to make their case to the employees. If they can't show the employees that their dues are going to a good cause, then maybe it's their own fault.



This seems to miss the point entirely. "Closed shop" unionism in which not being a member of the union precludes feeding your family and which forces union membership and financial support for its politics on workers who have strong disagreements with those politics, as a matter of conscience, is fundamentally inconsistent with a free society and the constitutional guarantees of our unalienable rights, including freedom of association and the right to enter into free contractual relations with others as we see fit in seeking and acquiring honorable, gainful employment.

The "closed shop" is fundamentally extorionistic in nature and is grounded in an emotionally high-pitched, collectivist pack mindset that always eventuates in the kind of mob mayhem and attitudes among union members that the rules and laws that govern civil society for others do not apply to them that we are now seeing in Michigan. We have seen this attitude on display since the 30s and we have seen it time and again since Obama began his initial campaign for his first presidential bid.

I can see both sides of the issue. If unions are bargaining on behalf of employees and getting them benefits they otherwise wouldn't have, then I'm not sure it's ethical for employees not to reimburse the union (i.e. pay "dues").


If I do not want them to bargain for me, and if I do not authorize them to bargain for me, then I can see no rational or morally substantive argument for my being forced to associate myself with the pack as a condition of employment, nor to force me to pay union dues for representation I do not want and to extort dues from me for political purposes with which I strongly disagree.

Private sector unionism is now less than 12% of all private sector workers, and there has been no "union busting," no legislation, and no court decisions forcing unions to disband or limiting their right to organize. All that has ever been needed to send unionism to the dustbin of history is right to work laws - freedom to choose whether or not be be in a union.

Given a choice, by law, whether to subject themselves to union representation, coercion, and politics, or whether to remain free, contractual agents, American workers have fled labor unionism in droves, and they will continue to do so well into the future, unless forced back into them by the mailed fist of the state.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _EAllusion »

This seems to miss the point entirely. "Closed shop" unionism in which not being a member of the union precludes feeding your family and which forces union membership and financial support for its politics on workers who have strong disagreements with those politics, as a matter of conscience, is fundamentally inconsistent with a free society and the constitutional guarantees of our unalienable rights, including freedom of association and the right to enter into free contractual relations with others as we see fit in seeking and acquiring honorable, gainful employment.

It's literally he opposite of what you are arguing. "Right to work" laws curtail freedom of association. All closed shop unions are is a group of people voluntarily getting together and telling an employer that they hire all of them or none of them on their terms. Collective bargaining is a negotiating tactic. The employer remains free to reject that deal. Employees remain free to join the collective or not understanding that if the union successfully negotiates a closed shop then its in their interest to be a part of it to maintain employment. Forbidding this kind of arrangement, which right to work laws are designed to do, specifically legally restricts free contractual relations with others in seeking and acquiring employment.

The traditional argument against this is anti-trust based, but that argument entails arguing that we have to restrict people's freedom of association to prevent harmful labor monopolies from forming.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _EAllusion »

The free rider problem is a bit more complex than simply people trying to passively ride the coattails of benefits unions negotiate without paying in. Right to work laws are written so unions are legally required to provide various benefits to non-union members. So union reps and attorneys have to be provided to non-union employees in HR disputes, for instance. It's like making taxes to pay for fire departments voluntary but requiring fire departments to show up to all calls anyway. Even if people believe in the nobility of the cause in the abstract, it's very easy to cut that expense out when budgets get tight. The natural incentive is so heavily in favor of free-riding that it threatens to strangle the entire service out of existence.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _subgenius »

EAllusion wrote:It's literally he opposite of what you are arguing. "Right to work" laws curtail freedom of association.

how so? allowing a person the choice whether to associate or not is more "freedom of association" than offering them no choice but "to associate".

EAllusion wrote:All closed shop unions are is a group of people voluntarily getting together and telling an employer that they hire all of them or none of them on their terms.

not really. It is a group, usually with forced membership, that states you will hire people from our organization or else. Often they will even dictate how many employees you must have. This is seen among the various construction unions quite easily.

EAllusion wrote:Collective bargaining is a negotiating tactic.

bargaining vs negotiating? really?
For example - a highly effective and successful teacher can be fired from position quite easily...whereas a tenured teacher with little success of effect will remain in place....not based on merit...but simply based on tenure...a collective bargaining instrument. (a.k.a.: entitlement)

EAllusion wrote:The employer remains free to reject that deal. Employees remain free to join the collective or not understanding that if the union successfully negotiates a closed shop then its in their interest to be a part of it to maintain employment. Forbidding this kind of arrangement, which right to work laws are designed to do, specifically legally restricts free contractual relations with others in seeking and acquiring employment.

what a load.
the employer is anything but "free". Unions exert political influence and often brute force to force employers to submit. Yet no one seems to notice that the extravagant costs simply get passed along to consumers. Union do little more these days than inflate prices and give people like Hoffa access to pension funds that make Wall Street golden parachutes look like tissue paper.
These bloated oafs have run their course, Unions are in the same category as "horses and bayonets".

EAllusion wrote:The traditional argument against this is anti-trust based, but that argument entails arguing that we have to restrict people's freedom of association to prevent harmful labor monopolies from forming.

actually the traditional argument against collective bargaining is that people should be free to join a union or not...that a worker should be free to work for an employer or not....that an employer should be free to negotiate with worker(s) or not.

what we have seen nationally is a trend away from Unions in all employment sectors...except...federal government.

next you be an advocate for a repeal of "at-will employment"....wait...you already are.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Let Freedom Ring as "Unions Prepare for ‘Civil War’"

Post by _EAllusion »

actually the traditional argument against collective bargaining is that people should be free to join a union or not...that a worker should be free to work for an employer or not....that an employer should be free to negotiate with worker(s) or not.



That already happens with union shops. If Bob and Terry get together and tell their employer that either they hire only from their union, which does not include Jim, or walk, everyone involved has a free choice to enter into that arrangement or not. The employer can accept Bob and Terry's proposal or not. The employer can hire Bob and Terry together or opt out and hire Jim. Jim can join Bob and Terry or try to negotiate with the employer alone. It's all allowed. That's what freedom of association is. Banning Bob and Terry from working together to negotiate with their employer the full terms of their employment is actually restricting that freedom.

The argument against this is that it threatens to create a dangerous monopoly on labor as union power pressures more and more workers to voluntarily join them or risk having an employer not hire them if that employer needs the labor pool in the union. This is 101 stuff. You're the anti-freedom person in this case. Whether you think that restriction is justified or not is a separate question from what restrictions you actually favor.
Post Reply