Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Big Government Big Government Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By TupSum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 27th, 2018, 12:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
A Lousy Week For Democrats

Talk about bummers.

First President Trump won his travel ban. Today the American people won a big one that could be the start of something big:


Supreme Court Deals Big Setback to Labor Unions
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that non-members do not have to pay labor union fees.
By Mark Sherman / AP 10:33 AM EDT

Supreme Court Deals Big Setback to Labor Unions | Time
Today’s Supreme Court ruling is worth a look at organized labor. Bumper sticker mentalities be forewarned.

Beginning in 1962 there were two labor movements operating in the United States at the same time:

1. The private sector labor movement.

2. The federal government employee labor movement.

Note that JFK created government unions by executive order:


Fifty years ago, on January 17, 1962, Federal employees first obtained the right to engage in collective bargaining through labor organizations when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, "Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Sector." Executive Order 10988 issued as result of the findings of the Task Force on Employee-Management Relations in the Federal Service, which was created by a memorandum issued to all executive department and agency heads by President Kennedy on June 22, 1961. In this memorandum the President noted that, "The participation of employees in the formation and implementation of employee policy and procedures affecting them contributes to the effective conduct of public business," and that this participation should be extended to representatives of employees and employee organizations.
50th Anniversary: Executive Order 10988

https://www.flra.gov/50th_Anniversary_EO10988
The first president of the AFL-CIO opposed public sector unions:

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good.

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

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions
James Sherk
Updated July 23, 2014, 4:19 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-sector-unions
As did Calvin Coolidge:

When government workers tried to engage in private sector-type unionism, they ran into fierce opposition. The 1919 Boston police strike—which occurred in the middle of the post-World War I Red Scare and an extraordinary year-long series of militant strikes in virtually every industry—showed how far public employers would go to block public-sector militancy and the political gains to be made in doing so. The Boston police commissioner did not object when police officers joined a local, independent association. But when they affiliated their group with the AFL, in effect claiming the same rights and status as private-sector workers, he suspended nineteen officers, precipitating a walkout. Governor Calvin Coolidge, in the name of defending “the sovereignty of Massachusetts,” fired all the strikers, brought in state troops to patrol the city, and recruited a new police force from demobilized soldiers. He rode his strike-breaking into the 1920 Republican vice presidential nomination and ultimately to the White House.

Many liberals shared Coolidge’s belief that government employees should not be allowed to unionize, or at least not engage in private-sector style unionism. In 1937 President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to the head of a federal employees group, proclaimed that:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service... . The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives...

This is the essence of the sovereignty argument against public-sector unionism, that collective bargaining undercuts the inherent power of the state as a sovereign representative of the people, and therefore is anti-democratic.
6-8-11
A Brief History of Opposition to Public-Sector Unionism
by Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139820
Parenthetically, the public voices I cited were right about public sector unions, but not one of them addressed the inherent evil in coerced charity (the government’s misuse of income taxes) nor did the SCOTUS touch the income tax in Janus v. AFSCME:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1466_2b3j.pdf

I will never understand why the SCOTUS does not put coerced charity on the docket. Surely, declaring coerced charity a First Amendment violation is a more demanding constitutional issue than the ones most Americans never heard of.

Two labor movements were diametrically opposed to one another from day one although private sector union members were shielded from that truth at all costs. Government employee unions organized against the American people while the members of private sector unions are part of the American people.

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

When the AFL merged with the CIO in 1955, the heart and soul of the private sector labor movement was finally laid to rest. The AFL was basically made up of skilled workers while the CIO was made up of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

I always found humor in the fact that in the beginning owners and their stooges hated unions while among workers in the AFL hated the CIO. MEBA, (Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association) was formed in 1875. Old-time seaman always said that they were the worst sons-of bitches that ever sailed. They had their union but did not want unlicenced personnel to organize. Being “officers” in a quasi-military industry they made life a living hell for unlicenced personnel. They eventually saw the error of their ways after unlicensed maritime unions acquired some muscle of their own.

Taft-Hartley, combined with the AFL-CIO merger, gave big government advocates absolute control over both labor movements just by controlling a few labor leaders. Most importantly, union shops lost the Right to call a job action at the local level.

Taft-Hartley also took away union power that is inherent in secondary boycotts. For example: If union members working in an oil refinery go out on strike at the refinery, union members cannot picket gas stations selling that company’s product. That is a secondary boycott. Organized labor’s awesome power was effectively placed in the hands of a few union officials who play golf in the same country clubs with the executives of major corporations and high-ranking government officials.

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

The possibility that private sector organized labor unions might return to an adversarial relationship with management is the biggest economic fear Socialists/Communists live with. The last thing Democrats want is for private sector workers to see the government as management. The government seen as management would lead to labor unions picketing the government rather than going out on strike against one corporation or another.

Should Democrat Party fears become a reality great opposition to the creation of tax dollar millionaires loyal to Socialism would spring up like Jack’s beanstalk. That possibility is better eliminated before it takes hold.

There is also a possibility that workers in private sector unions, that is workers in industries that actually produce something, will demand the same unlimited access to their income tax dollars education and medical industries enjoy.

Socialists eliminated opposition from private sector labor unions by transfering as many jobs as possible to foreign countries. After those industries that lend themselves to organized labor here in the United States were spread thin in dozens of foreign countries, the private sector labor union all but disappeared entirely. Private sector laborers in every country can then be enslaved by the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) in order to establish a universal minimum wage at the lowest possible level. A universal minimum is essential in protecting the fortunes and incomes of absentee owners on a global scale. Notice that I said “absentee owners” rather than owners.

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

Private sector unions were established in the U.S. away back in the nineteenth century, but they were powerless for the most part until the Great Depression. The Sailors Union of the Pacific was founded in 1884, but it remained powerless until the nineteen-thirties.

Here is a little bit about the labor movement you will not learn in a public school.

Whenever a seaman quit a ship prior to the year 1934, that ship’s master would write in the seaman’s employment book what he thought of that seaman’s performance and conduct. That book, known as a fink book, was despised by every seaman that ever sailed before the mast. Before a seaman could sign aboard a ship, the master would read what previous captains had to say about the job applicant. If there was one black mark in the fink book the seaman in question was not hired.

NOTE:
In Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, that scoundrel Long John Silver assumes the mantle of a moralist when one of his fellow mutineers marks a black spot on a page torn form the Bible. I always felt that R. L. Stevenson was having some fun with readers of his day by implying that the Holy Bible was a fink book fated to be championed by the likes of Long John. There is certainly more going on in that specific chapter of Treasure Island than meets the eye when first read.

Seamen were required to carry the very instrument that might deny them employment. Without a fink book in his possession a seaman would be lucky to find a berth on the meanest of ships.

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

During the big strike in 1934, the boys got together at the Ferry Building down at the foot of Market Street in San Francisco and burned their fink books; no small decision in the throes of a deepening depression. The fat was in the fire so to speak. They either won that strike or they could forget about earning a living on ships. Of course, they won that all important strike and fink books were done away with. Or, to be more accurate, the fink book evolved into “seaman’s papers” issued by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Seaman’s papers are nothing more than a military type ID card the Coast Guard can revoke at any time. No one can get seaman’s papers without a promise of employment from a union or a shipping company which further shows how unions and government work together. I do not know if it is still the same, but it used to be that not everyone with seaman’s papers could sail on oceangoing vessels. Only those papers with the endorsement “Any waters. Unlimited” or some such terminology could work on oceangoing vessels. The endorsement on some papers restricts employment to rivers, harbors, the Great Lakes, etc.

Without seaman’s papers you cannot work on an American flag vessel. Not that it matters to the overall economy since this country no longer has a merchant marine worth mentioning. Building and sailing oceangoing vessels was the first industry to be outsourced long before outsourcing dominated economic foreign policy. See this thread:


Steel versus Steal

It is important to understand that the fink book embraced company stiffs. In theory, abolishing fink books would be replaced by a system of job rotation. Although job rotation works very well in very limited applications, that system of allocating labor is unrealistic on a national scale even though it was an important evolutionary step in labor-management relations.

NOTE: The men in the SUP who opposed the fink book were never against ownership. The private sector’s labor movement’s most important slogan was always “Down with the hated boss.” It was never “Down with ownership,”or even ”Down with the hated owner” —— robber barons notwithstanding. A dedicated private sector union man or woman represented a very important component in American capitalism. Now that Socialists —— implementing Communist thinking —— control the American workforce there are no true union workers in the U.S.

The fink book wheel has truly come around. There are a few private sector unions whose members enjoy high pay. Today’s unions use a system of invisible fink books that protect sloth, lifetime tenure, favoritism, nepotism and butt-sucking. The only significant difference is that today’s company stiffs have to please a union official and a company supervisor.

Many Americans who pay dues to one union or another mistakenly believe they are trade unionists occupying the moral high ground against the evil slave masters. Few of today’s rank and file union members know that the altruism associated with unions in an earlier age is largely a myth. The early labor movement was about capitalism; it was about individuals getting a piece of the pie for themselves. It was never about collectivism in the minds of rank and file union men back in the beginning.

One must be well-connected to get into a well-paying union. Most, if not all, of the high paying union jobs are passed down from father to son. That form of union nepotism was practiced by white Americans before federal and state intervention into the workplace, and is now used just as effectively by minorities against the majority. The government’s interference in this area of labor changed two things. It reversed who got good jobs, and it made every level of the workplace dependent upon government patronage. Any American who does NOT hold a good union job has no reason to vote for candidates who support private sector, or civil service, labor unions.

Many of the Johnny-come-lately unions that were founded in the middle and late nineteen-thirties were organizations designed to prevent guild Socialism type unions from flourishing. American working men and women were attracted to unions during the Great Depression, but they were not attracted to unions that fill the air with an overpowering stench of guild Socialism.

Private sector labor unions throughout their brief period of some political influence contributed much to creating a secure private sector middle class. A private sector middle class is a cancer on society when viewed from a government perspective.

Socialists/Communists believe that every society should be structured with them at the top, government employees and business managers in the middle class, and every private sector employee at the bottom; earning less than the lowest paid government employee earns. That is the natural order of things to a Communist. Anything less than that is not pure Socialism.

Except for a very few unions whose members are still exceptionally well-paid private sector unions were given the dirty end of the stick after Taft-Hartley, while civil service unions escalated their rush to Socialism led by the teachers’ unions.

Before private sector union members vote for candidates who are unquestionably in favor of big government they should ask themselves the following questions:

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

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

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

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

5. Do private sector unions have as much influence in Washington, or in state capitals, as do civil service unions or the teachers’ unions? (Teachers really belong to civil service unions when you get right down to it.)

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

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

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

8. What is the number of foreign nationals holding influential positions, paid by tax dollars, in the United States? In think tanks? In universities? In government bureaucracies?

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

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

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

Public sector unions is why I often say no private sector union member should ever vote for labor union candidates, most especially candidates supported by teachers’ unions.

Public sector unions are an abomination. None more than teachers’ unions, yet few Americans think about teachers’ unions as GOVERNMENT UNIONS designed to work against the American people.

Last edited by Flanders111; June 27th, 2018 at 12:13 PM.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 28th, 2018, 01:30 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Parenthetically, the public voices I cited were right about public sector unions, but not one of them addressed the inherent evil in coerced charity (the government’s misuse of income taxes) nor did the SCOTUS touch the income tax in Janus v. AFSCME:
Nor did the SCOTUS address purchasing power; that is union dues forcing Americans to purchase the Democrat Party’s big government ideology.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the main dissent in the case, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Opinion analysis: Court strikes down public-sector union fees (Updated)
Amy Howe
Posted Wed, June 27th, 2018 12:14 pm

Opinion analysis: Court strikes down public-sector union fees (Updated) - SCOTUSblog
If you view the dissenting opinions from Steny Hoyer’s perspective he comes up smelling like a rose:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoye...-americans-buy
Assuming every rep. votes it takes 218 votes to elect a speaker of the house. That makes it much easier for Socialists/Communists to protect and promote their agenda rather than relying on thousands of Socialist voters in each of 435 districts sending them to Congress.

I have said that if Republicans want to keep the House they should run against Nancy Pelosi. Republicans better add Hoyer to their campaign commercials now that he is crawling out from under his rock for a last chance to unseat Nutso. Should the Blue Wave materialize American’s are looking at a fatal illness should either one of the two become speaker:


Hoyer, the Maryland centrist and perpetual leader-in-waiting in the House of Representatives, was on a mission to woo blue-collar voters and help his party win back control of the House.

He was also looking for what could be his last shot.

“Would I like to be speaker? Of course. Would I be disappointed if it doesn’t happen? No,” the No. 2 House Democrat said by phone, reflecting on his long career as he cut through snow-covered rolling hills, a world away from his Chesapeake Bay home turf.

Hoyer has been eying the top spot for more than a decade, living in the shadow of a San Francisco Democrat who has a white-knuckle grip on power. Now, as the party wrestles with its ideological impulses and younger lawmakers push for a generational shift — both he and Pelosi are 78 years old — Hoyer may be looking for one more play.

Replacing one longtime leader with another is not what many Democrats have in mind. Still, Hoyer is actively, if quietly, seeking lawmakers’ support. His allies put him forward as a possible “bridge” leader, who might ease a transition to a next generation — if Pelosi ever steps aside. Others find far-fetched the notion that a white, male centrist from blue Maryland would be the new face of the Democratic Party.
House’s Steny Hoyer takes a last shot at the top spot
By LISA MASCARO
Today

https://apnews.com/55a6d138a0f34c7b8...t-the-top-spot
Democrats are in more trouble than Republicans if Hoyer is the crest of the Blue Wave.

Could we possibly benefit from some fresh ideas?” the lawmaker added.
Hoyer’s spot as Pelosi heir challenged by younger reps
By Mike Lillis - 04/12/18 06:01 AM EDT

Hoyer?s spot as Pelosi heir challenged by younger reps | TheHill
Instead of getting new ideas Democrats better abandon the old ideas like the ones Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocates.

The American people cannot vote Hoyer out of office, but maybe Democrats in the House can do it. Presumably, Hoyer will retire if the House dumps him:

Progressive Democrats call for Steny Hoyer’s resignation after secret recording emerges
By Seth McLaughlin - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 26, 2018

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...y-shenanigans/
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 29th, 2018, 07:20 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Instead of getting new ideas Democrats better abandon the old ideas like the ones Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocates.
Why not!

Ocasio-Cortez wants to be president, mom says
By Georgett Roberts and Joe Tacopino
June 27, 2018 | 10:08pm

https://nypost.com/2018/06/27/ocasio...dent-mom-says/
Ocasio-Cortez should give it try. Being a woman, and a Democrat, she can count on the same protection media gave to the dirtiest woman in American politics. Look at how close Hillary came, and she came with more baggage than a fleet of 707s:


Frankly, a young Socialist going further Left than a crazy old coot, Bernie Sanders, would be more entertaining than a three-ring circus.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 15th, 2018, 08:48 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
I have said that if Republicans want to keep the House they should run against Nancy Pelosi. Republicans better add Hoyer to their campaign commercials now that he is crawling out from under his rock for a last chance to unseat Nutso. Should the Blue Wave materialize American’s are looking at a fatal illness should either one of the two become speaker:
When was Nutso ever coherent?

July 15, 2018
As Pelosi increasingly incoherent in public, Dems face a battle over leadership succession
By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...uccession.html
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 16th, 2018, 06:43 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Ocasio-Cortez should give it try. Being a woman, and a Democrat, she can count on the same protection media gave to the dirtiest woman in American politics. Look at how close Hillary came, and she came with more baggage than a fleet of 707s:
The wannabe cannot be faulted for admitting she is not an expert. She should take heat for being an idiot:

New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez struggled to explain her position on the Israel-Palestine conflict Friday night before admitting she is “not an expert” on the situation.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Fumbles Through Questions On Israel And Palestine
1:53 PM 07/16/2018
Amber Athey

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Fumbles Through Questions On Israel And Palestine | The Daily Caller
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 16th, 2018, 07:05 AM   #6
Member
 
TupSum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Toronto
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
The wannabe cannot be faulted for admitting she is not an expert. She should take heat for being an idiot:

New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez struggled to explain her position on the Israel-Palestine conflict Friday night before admitting she is “not an expert” on the situation.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Fumbles Through Questions On Israel And Palestine
1:53 PM 07/16/2018
Amber Athey

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Fumbles Through Questions On Israel And Palestine | The Daily Caller

American politicians must have the CORRECT attitude about this. Otherwise they can kiss their careers goodbye.

Just like in communist countries the members of the party must support the party line or else.
Thanks from Flanders111
TupSum is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Tags
democrats, lousy, week



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If this keeps up another week urbrother Current Events 2 May 25th, 2018 07:58 AM
GOP Wants 3 Week DHS Funding Bill Democrats Still Laughing skews13 Current Events 24 February 28th, 2015 04:08 AM
2014 Was a Lousy Year for Obama at the Supreme Court antares Political Talk 0 December 30th, 2014 01:43 PM
What I did this week... tadpole256 Warfare 4 May 10th, 2009 06:38 PM
Democrats open 'Sunshine Week,' citing Bush secrecy CNN Current Events 1 March 14th, 2007 08:29 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.