Skip to main content

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's speech at the National Press Club this week provides an important context for why we need to be paying attention—careful, specific attention—to the war on working people. Not just union workers, let's be clear. Although unions are often the most visible target (or scapegoat), this extends way beyond unions to an assault on the broader American middle class, and that's how Trumka approached it.

America's economic fate depends on us coming together to educate our children, to invest in our infrastructure, to face the threat of climate change and to reverse the yawning economic inequality that threatens our future.

Let me be specific. Unemployment stands at 9%. Underemployment is at 16%.  Housing prices are falling, and foreclosures remain at historic highs. Economic growth is hovering at around 2% annually—not enough to put a dent in unemployment, especially as tax cuts expire, as the Recovery Act winds down—and state and local governments gear up for more deep cuts.  

Yet instead of having a national conversation about putting America back to work to build our future, the debate here in Washington is about how fast we can destroy the fabric of our country, about breaking the promises we made to our parents and grandparents....

Why is our national conversation in such a destructive place?  Not because we are impoverished. We have never been richer. The American economy has never produced as much wealth as it does today. But we feel poor because the wealth in our society has flowed to a handful among us, and they and the politicians who pander to the worst instincts of the wealthy would rather break promises to our parents and grandparents and deny our children a future than pay their fair share of taxes.
 

This war on workers is massive and comprehensive, stretching from education, school lunches, and child labor law to the Ryan plan to gut Medicare and Social Security, and hitting people of every age in between. Except, of course, the very (very) rich.

With that in mind, a few recent high and low points:

  • Republicans are wailing and gnashing their teeth because the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had the temerity to file a complaint against Boeing for punishing workers who exercised their legal rights. Kimberly Freeman Brown of American Rights at Work explains:
    The congressionally-mandated mission of the NLRB is to enforce the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, a law that protects workers’ rights and promotes a level playing field for workers and businesses. The agency’s nonpartisan mission has been accepted by Presidents and legislators on both sides of the aisle for the past 75 years.

    When it comes to Boeing, the company’s own statements to employees and the media indicated that it was moving production in response to workers at its Washington state facility exercising rights guaranteed under the NLRA. Given that the NLRB’s role is to investigate potential violations of the law, the agency had little choice but to respond. Far from overreach, Lafe Solomon was just doing his job.

    David Madland at the Center for American Progress finds others agreeing:

    The Washington Post’s business columnist Steven Pearlstein argues that “given the public statements of Boeing officials, there is nothing radical about the NLRB’s decision to hold a hearing based on the complaint filed by the International Association of Machinists.” Similarly, Joe Marra, a former NLRB lawyer who now represents employers with the law firm Davis Grimm Payne & Marra, told The Seattle Times that he doesn't find the NLRB complaint surprising. “If my sympathies are anywhere, they are with management,” said Marra. “But I am also a realist. If I'm their labor lawyer, I'm cringing when they are saying that.”

    In case you're in any doubt that the outrage over NLRB "overreach" is manufactured, Madland lays out some recent history:

    One hundred and seventy-six House Republicans (75 percent of the caucus) voted to eliminate all funding for the NLRB, which would have prevented the enforcement of labor law for a year. The measure failed to pass the House, but H.R. 1, the continuing resolution passed by the House, included a $50 million reduction in the National Labor Relations Board’s budget, which if it had also passed the Senate would have forced NLRB staff members to be furloughed for 55 days, causing a backlog of cases to pile up.

    Many congressional Republicans have also been trying to prevent union elections from being decided by a majority vote. Last year, the National Mediation Board did away with an absurd rule that, for union elections under the Railway Labor Act, counted workers who didn’t vote as having voted against unionization. House Republican leaders are now using legislation that reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to try and reverse the board’s ruling, once again counting absent workers as votes against the union. Senate Republican leaders, during the debate over the Senate’s version of the FAA bill, attempted to attach an amendment that would have blocked workers at the Transportation Security Administration from unionizing.

    And conservative members of Congress are apoplectic about the NLRB’s decision this week to sue the states of Arizona and South Dakota seeking to invalidate those states’ constitutional amendments that prohibit private-sector employees from choosing to unionize through a procedure known as card check. The lawsuit is unsurprising and it continues a long precedent of striking down state laws preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, which these same conservatives support when it is used to strike down laws increasing workers’ union rights.

    Expect this war on the NLRB to continue for just as long as there's a Democrat in the White House.

  • Rhee-watch: Fresh off a cheating scandal and an appearance at a DeVos-funded event with Scott Walker and Tom Corbett, former DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee was John Kasich's special guest for a screening of charter school propaganda piece Waiting for Superman.

    Note the governors she's making appearances with: Wisconsin's Scott Walker, Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett, Ohio's John Kasich. And to round out her partnerships with the worst of the worst, she's working with Florida's Rick Scott, Nevada's Brian Sandoval, and...well, consult your list of worst governors. They're probably big Rhee supporters.

    This isn't incidental. It's about privatizing public education, reducing transparency and accountability in education, and driving down working conditions for teachers and support staff. That has an enormous impact right now on our middle class and an exponentially bigger one in the future as the kids trying to learn under this system grow up.

  • New England brings a couple of pieces of good news. As we reported earlier in the week, Democrat Jennifer Daler won a special election to the New Hampshire House in one of the state's most Republican districts. That's one small drop in the oversized bucket of the New Hampshire House, but it deprives Speaker William O'Brien (R) of one of the votes he's trying to scrounge up to overturn Gov. John Lynch's (D) veto of a so-called right to work bill.

    In Maine, the Bangor Daily News reports that two so-called right to work bills may face "a quiet death":

    [Republican Speaker of the House Robert Nutting] said both bills were likely to be contentious, and the Republicans would meet in caucus to discuss the future of the proposals. Asked if the bills might die a quiet, procedural death, Nutting replied: “That certainly is an option. I have said from the very beginning that [right-to-work] wasn’t high on my list of things to do.”

Of course, as Trumka said, the bigger story in the war on workers is the constant backdrop of high unemployment, policies that place corporations over people, and massive inequality. But each of these individual stories contributes to the overall direction of that big story, representing an inch forward or backward.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:01 PM PDT.

Also republished by Take New Hampshire Forward! and ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  In Order For Undereducation to Cause a Problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike in Wa

    there needs to be something to do with an education in the economy.

    I'm not so sure that downgrading education quality is going to hurt all that much.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:05:23 PM PDT

  •  Rec'ed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike in Wa, johnmorris

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:06:30 PM PDT

  •  Michelle Rhee isn't into privatizing (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not a fan of any of the governors Michelle Rhee is appearing with---Walker and Kasich and Company ARE all about busting unions. But Rhee is not. Check out any of her statements and look for proposals to end unions. You will find none. Instead, she's been trying to change teachers' contracts to end quality-blind lay-offs and institute meaningful evaluations with consequences.  

    Unless/until we address the issue of teacher (and principal) quality, we will NEVER get increases in teacher pay or an increase in respect for the profession. The teachers' unions are at the adapt or die stage. They can continue to insist on out-moded industrial-era, quality-blind contracts----in which case we WILL have privatization. Or the unions can change.

    I see Michelle Rhee as acting as an (unwanted) guardian angel for teachers' union and public education in general by pushing these entrenched, inert interests to make the key changes they seem unwilling to make themselves.

    I write this as a long-time union member and parent with kids in public schools. It's not either/or, all or nothing. We have to bring teachers' contracts into the 21st century AND fight privatization efforts.

    •  I've looked at Rhee's record, (16+ / 0-)

      going a bit beyond what she says she's doing, and looked at what she's actually doing. Yes, she's a union-buster, and the "meaningful evaluations with consequences" she's pushing for may have consequences, but they don't have any kind of proven track record, they don't build on the things we know work, they are all about building a rationale for union-busting and privatization, whether in the form of charter schools, TFA, or vouchers.

      What you're saying is what she wants well-meaning people to believe. That doesn't mean it's any more true than the erasure-driven test scores she rewarded.

      •  does last-in-first-out have a (0+ / 0-)

        proven track record? Do master's degree have a proven track record? In fact, on a research basis you could argue that neither credentials nor seniority have any kind of proven track record at all.

        There's no evidence that getting a master's degree makes you a more effective teacher.  Yet our pay scales are designed to reward master's degrees (and give education schools a whole lot of business.)

        The research shows that most teacher improvement comes within the first five years; there is mild improvement for the next five years. But after ten years, overall, there is very little improvement in effectiveness---from what the research shows. Yet we continue to pay teachers for simply staying on the job---as opposed to performing effectively.

        Name me another viable institution or non-profit that practices such methods.

        The status quo has failed. If friends don't let friends drive drunk, friends of unions shouldn't let them drive off the cliffs of public opinion---which is what they're doing right now. And no, this is not the result of bad propaganda---it's the result of what parents like me see, every day, year in and year out. The majority of my kids teachers have been okay, good or great. But a sizable minority shouldn't be in the classroom.

        Sorry, but it's not "anti-union" to want effective teachers for kids. I'd argue that it's "anti-union" to continue with a status quo that parents hate and the public has come to (rightfully) mistrust.

    •  This isn't right at all (5+ / 0-)

      Rhee's group is supporting the Governor's voucher plan in PA - privatization.  And her statements on unions are that unions should be able to negotiate salary and benefit levels, but that teachers shouldn't have other say in the profession.  This is akin to Paul Ryan's continuing to say he supports  Medicare.  

      Under Rhee's vision of unions,  organized labor won't be a vehicle to pursue broader social justice, it will be a vehicle to pusue the narrow economic interests of its members, because that's all Rhee wants it to be.   If you look at the labor management cooperation that Arne Duncan is highlighting here,  none of it is possible under Rhee's vision.

  •  Trumpka For President! nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irons33, COBALT1928

    Thanks for the article. Vital work.

  •  let me comment as a teacher and union leader (17+ / 0-)

    it is more than high time for teachers to recognize that they are in exactly the same boat as any other workers -  if their unions are broken their lives and economic futures will be destroyed.

    There are around 4 million unionized teachers.  Far too many are members in name only -  for liability insurance, or because they may have to pay at least a representation fee and the rest of the dues are not that much more.

    For far too long the leadership of teachers unions has not necessarily been the most sterling, at least at many local levels.

    We need the best and brightest to recognize that part of their commitment to their profession should include their commitment to protection of their rights including tenure and due process.

    We as teachers should support the collective bargaining rights of ALL workers.

    We should similarly hope that workers in industrial and service unions would recognize that at least some of us recognize our common concerns, the need for us to cooperate on behalf of all American workers for the future of this nation.

    We must stand together, or we will surely be picked off separately.

    "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

    by teacherken on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:25:25 PM PDT

    •  Much of the problem is (5+ / 0-)

      that there's often not enough time to be an effective teacher and an effective union leader -- but that's often the case in many unionized occupations.

      Gaining support from other unions should be no problem, because many people in those unionized occupations are also parents and have children in schools, or at least understand the need for quality education.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes

      by Cali Scribe on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:43:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it has to go beyond that (4+ / 0-)

      Yes, in public-sector unions we can afford to be national in our scope.

      But for the private industry sector, we no longer can be. American corporations have over half their productive capacity located overseas and generate over half their profits in other countries.  No union can be effective in any way against that UNLESS they are able to take on the corporation outside the country too.

      That means that the outdated and useless structure of nation-based unions must end, and be replaced by a company-based structure instead, in which every workers in the company is in the same union, with the same contract, and the same wage scale, no matter WHAT country their plant happens to be located in.

      It used to be that "workers of the world unite!" was just an idealistic political slogan. Now, it is labor's only survival strategy.

      •  That "outdated and useless structure (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teacherken, laborish, COBALT1928

        of nation-based unions" only really exists here in the US. We have been isolated from world labor by our government and the corporations that own it. And the globalization of US labor law combined with US directed trade treaties has crippled international labor as well as American labor. We are the problem.

        •  no, not really (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          socalmonk, laborish, COBALT1928

          True, other nations have at least TALKED about international unions and we haven't even gotten that far, but the sad fact remains that all unions everywhere are stubbornly nationalistic in reality, whether they are or not in outlook.  There is no multinational company that faces the same union of all its workers, allowing them to continue to divide and conquer.

          •  There's more going on here (0+ / 0-)

            Work between American and foreign unions is ongoing, and it has led to interesting multinational campaigns agains multinational corporate employers. There isn't enough of it, but there's some flexibility in the labor movement still.

    •  Unions (6+ / 0-)

      I belong to IAM 751, one of the more powerful unions left in our country.  I have been through 4 strikes in my career.  We have been derided as beingf greedy and self serving.  The media gives us harsh criticism saying we are driving our employer out of state.  But the truth of the matter is this: we drive the local economy by patronizing local businesses, and creating more jobs because of local demand.  My employer (Boeing) can cry all they want about how they're sick of dealing with strikes, and they went on record to the Seattle Times that they moved the 2nd 787 line to South Carolina because of labor relations.  And here's the dirty truth: here in Everett, we're building a second 787 line.  Our facility is simply overwhelmed.  We have the largest building in the world (defined by square footage), we are just at full capacity.  I see dozens of "new hires" every day.  The place is at an all time boom, unprecedented in my 24 years with the company.  And unions are ruining America? Give me a break.

      •  Company success is not about union involvement (0+ / 0-)

        I belonged to Teamster's Union Local 391 for over 10 years and never, ever was there an issue that involved loss of business because of union involvement.  This issue is not about successful business or good sales and such.  That's a separate issue althgether.  

        When you say "we drive the local economy by patronizing local businesses"...well, actually, everyone does that, even non-union folks.  I have seen just too many bad things within our Teamster's union work environment that have turned me off to unions...from forced participation in things many disagreed with to protecting the very poor worker and workers that actually created safety risks for others.  I guess I don't look at this from a "big picture" standpoint...but from a realistic, hands-one standpoint.  Sorry if I'm not on your side on this issue, but it's important to have more than just one viewpoint on any particular issue.

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:59:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you Teacherken (0+ / 0-)

      couldn't have said it better myself!

      Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the advocates of truth and justice... Robert Ingersol

      by BMarshall on Sun May 22, 2011 at 04:36:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  we have a union movement in the US? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun, wbgonne, Mike in Wa, BYw

    Where's it been hiding for the past 30 years?

    •  It went into hiding after witnessing the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928, BYw

      murder of the American working class.

    •  Unions.... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, COBALT1928, pot, BYw

      Unions are really hurting, we are against the "ropes" so to speak.  But there are areas where we are OK.  My local is doing fine, but we have to fight for every inch that we get.  It's not pretty, but that's what we do.  The last contract that we got from the company, the company  demanded that new hires would not get a company retirement.  We struck over that issue and eventually settled.  We didn't want a 2 tiered system that pitted the new hires versus the old timers.  The company would like that wedge, but we said no.  And we are better off for taking that stand.

      •  amen to all that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mike in Wa

        But the problem remains what to do when the company closes the plant and moves it to Somalia?

        •  Unions (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson, COBALT1928, BYw

          The company is not closing the plant.  But expanding.   I can't even find parking, the place is simply booming, the repug's say unions suck, but here's where I refute  their claim: if unions are so bad for the country, why are we doing so good?  Facts are difficult things.  They might get in front of idology

          •  People who ask that question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BYw

            need to understand that every country in Europe has strong unions with political power that demand and get higher pay and more benefits than we do and that their companies trade with us and have a surplus in that trade. The 'starve the workers' strategy is a failure society wide. It only works to enrich a few families at the top and hurts 90% of society. Its exactly the same in education, it doesn't improve schools, it doesn't educate children but it does increase Michelle Lee's and Arny Duncan's salaries and enriches their mentors and is degrading our citizenry.

            "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

            by johnmorris on Sun May 22, 2011 at 06:49:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans are vassals to Chinese Plutocrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    COBALT1928

    They'll gut America and leave barracaded islands of seasonal homes for the ultra-rich, separated by miles of favelas. GOPers love Huntsman because he can take his marching orders directly in Mandarin.

  •  Charter schools are a double or triple win (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Abelia, COBALT1928

    for the plutocracy.

    1.  They generate profit.

    2.  They generate students who are ill-taught and ignorant, and therefore likely to be docile subjects.

    3.  They help destroy teachers' unions.

    Teaching jobs cannot be off-shored, but Charter Schools are the next best thing.

    Just sayin'.

    The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

    by magnetics on Sun May 22, 2011 at 02:55:19 PM PDT

  •  This won't be a popular post (0+ / 0-)

    I am troubled when a suppsed "independent agency" such as the NLRB (http://en.wikipedia.org/...) begins to be taking sides in an unabashed way.

    This isn't what this kind of government agency should be doing regardless of what some people think is "right" or "wrong".  

    The NLRB is supposed to be non-partisan and not take sides.  When government agencies get away from that, we all lose.  If the NLRB were anti-union and sided with all anti-union causes and elections, then we'd all be hollering and screaming.  

    This agency should be non-partisan and not involved in taking sides in any way whatsoever.

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Sun May 22, 2011 at 05:19:57 PM PDT

    •  the NLRB is not an "independent" or "nonpartisan" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928, pot

      agency, and never was intended to be.

      It's only reason for existing is to enforce Federal labor law against people who violate that law.

      It can no more be "impartial" or "nonpartisan" towards Federal labor law violators than the FBI or US Attorney's Office can be with accused criminals.

    •  This is what the National Labor Relations Act says (0+ / 0-)

      "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection. "

      It says a lot more.  Also, there's nothing partisan about Boeing trying to move a plant simply in order to intimidate and punish its workforce, that's an injustice that should be seen and felt more pimally than an issue of "partisanship."   Children of famillies that experience a plant shutdown are more likely to go to jail, have lower earnings and a variety of social ills than others.  This is company that appears to be on the record as saying they will move the production line simply because they are trying to avoid the union.  That's illegal, and the board is investigating it.

      Most companies are smart enough to cloak their union busting in rhetoric that doesn't trigger board action.  

    •  Are you arguing they should not go after Boeing (0+ / 0-)

      for allegedly breaking federal labor law? If the allegations are true that Boeing let simply because workers practiced their rights to attempt to form a union, they broke the law. No taking sides unless you count the law as a side.

      Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

      by pot on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:20:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Workers of the World Unite (0+ / 0-)

    This slogan, or worse yet, this idea sound just FAR too "communist" or "New World Order" to me.

    I am not sure what the proponents of this universal union concept is looking for overall, but me, for one, wouldn't be in favor of a "world union" concept.  That's a little too "controlling" to me.  

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Sun May 22, 2011 at 05:35:57 PM PDT

    •  how about world corporations. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928, pot, wbgonne

      Those too "communist" for you too?

      •  ? (0+ / 0-)

        Look, I'm sure I'm coming off as some kind of right wing nutjob here, but I'm not, trust me.   We don't have a "world corporation network" or some kind of world corporation entity that requires corporations to belong to some massive joint corporation conglomerate or something like that.  What I think I'm seeing here and on other such venues is an effort to have some kind of world union conglomerate where all workers in the world are involved in a massive world union entity.

        I'm just not for that...for many, many reasons on many, many levels.  I doubt we'd agree on anything either of us say, so that's about all I plan to say on the issue.

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Sun May 22, 2011 at 06:18:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  actually we do. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pot, wbgonne
          We don't have a "world corporation network" or some kind of world corporation entity that requires corporations to belong to some massive joint corporation conglomerate or something like that.

          and it has legal veto power, by treaty, over anything any democratic government does that it doesn't like.

          And there is only one way to effectively fight it. As Ben Franklin told the 13 colonies when they resolved to fight the British Empire----"join or die".

    •  So you don't want (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pot

      to have a Democratic voice in the control of your life? Who is your candidate for corporate dictator?

      "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

      by johnmorris on Sun May 22, 2011 at 06:55:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you believe in NWO conspiracies? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wbgonne

      And when is workers uniting communism?

      Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

      by pot on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:21:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When Boeing decided to move their headquarters. . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    COBALT1928, pot, absolute beginner

    . . .to Chicago, I  told my wife that Boeing will be out of Washington in twenty years, because Boeing does not like unions.  They are progressing toward that goal about as I expected.  The move to a right to work state and then the addition of a second assembly line there, is but an anecdote in a planned effort to rid Boeing of unions.   I predict that the move will eventually lead them to some offshore low cost paradise.

    WA-01 Born HI-01 (Yes my certificate of live birth looks just like Obama's)

    by waztec on Sun May 22, 2011 at 05:42:08 PM PDT

    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

      Businesses and corporations are in business to make a profit...all of the profit they can muster up...so that they can grow and expand.  It's what the capitalist system is all about.  If it is legal for them to find locations outside of the country or see labor cost advantages in right-to-work states, then why wouldn't they do this?  They're not in the business of sacrificing profits so as to be good "corporate citizens" in the employment arena.  It just doesn't work that way.  

      If unions want Boeing not to move to the South, then they have to be competitive.  It's how it works.  It's how it SHOULD work.  When any government agency or group starts telling companies how/who/where they should be hiring, we're entering into fascism.  Look up the definition.

      -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

      by r2did2 on Sun May 22, 2011 at 05:52:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  too funny. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pot, wbgonne

        When the big bad government tells business that it has to have minimum wage, or worker safety equipment, or environmental protections, or child labor laws--is that "fascism" too?

        When did business owners get the god-given right to do whatever they want?

      •  Uh no, fascism is control of the government by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wbgonne

        corporations. You have it completely backwards. And yeah your right, you do come off as a right wing nutjob since you are espousing right wing views and stupid slurs like "communist" "fascist" "new world order".

        Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

        by pot on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:23:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          Fascism is control BY the government.

          Read here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Of note is this quote from above link: "Fascism is anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-bourgeois, anti-proletarian and anti-conservative.[16] It entails a distinctive type of anti-capitalism..."

          There are many sources on the definition of fascism and all of them say it's control BY the government, not control OF the government.

          -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

          by r2did2 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 08:33:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What is the feeling here? (0+ / 0-)

    Is it the general feeling here on DKos that there should be a requirement that people belong to a union in order to obtain employment?

    Is that the belief here vs people having a choice to belong to a union or not belong to a union as their choice?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:51:14 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I believe in a closed shop. (0+ / 0-)

      Right to work for less sucks.

      CitizenX: "If the republicans were in charge GM & Chrysler would be dead and Osama bin Laden would be alive."

      by TomP on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:27:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site