Skip to main content


Romney's video (and presumably his next RtW salvo as well) is just plain wrong. The video features a New Hampshire business owner, one in the warm grandpa mode, talking plaintively about how his business is a family and he has "reasonable confidence" his workers are happy and he's just worried about them, the workers:

What if they don't want to join the union and the union says you have to join? What happens to them? Do they have to leave the company because it's a union house? Well, to me that's absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong....We live in the Live Free or Die state and they can damn well choose whether they want to join an organization or not join an organization.

As it happens, it is absolutely wrong to say that workers have to leave a union employer if they don't want to be in the union. That is, it's a factually incorrect statement. A refresher on the facts, from the post I'm glad I wrote once so I wouldn't have to rewrite it every single time:

["Right to Work"] proponents would have you believe that without RtW laws in place, you can be forced to join a union in order to get a job…in a unionized workplace, a point they tend to gloss over. I mean, really, it would be nice if job=job in a unionized workplace, but that’s not remotely the case. In reality (PDF), though, you can never be forced to join a union—you can only be required to pay dues directly related to work the union does representing you.

So there is no circumstance (barring an unimaginably massive, pro-union overhaul of labor law) in which Romney's grandpa figure would have to worry that his anti-union employees would be driven from the warm family embrace of his business because of their refusal to join a union. What he really appears to be worried about is that his workers may unionize—buried in the video is an admission that what makes him want RtW is the concern that the NLRB might make it easier to unionize.

All his talk about the union as a third party coming between him and his warm loving family of employees, then, is a cover for the fact that he's concerned that those very employees, the ones he's "reasonably confident" are happy, might want to join a union. After all, a currently non-union workplace is not going to become a union workplace without support from a majority of the workers. But by weakening unions in a state, RtW makes it less likely a strong union will be available for workers in that state to join should they wish to. RtW prevents employers and unions from agreeing to a "union security" clause, which:

...says that if the union represents you, you have to pay your share of the costs they incur. So what banning that type of agreement means is that if someone gets a job in a unionized workplace, the union has to represent them, but they have no responsibility to the union. They get the wages and benefits negotiated, however improved those may be (union members earn, on average, 28% more than non-members), and don’t contribute to the costs of negotiating. If they’re fired illegally, the union represents them for free, no matter how much staff time and resources go into defending them. And if they feel like the union didn’t do well enough representing them for free, they can sue.

You can see where that goes. People enter as freeloaders, happy to have improved wages and benefits and help when they have a problem with the boss, and happy to let someone else pay for it. But that freeloading weakens the union, and in the end, working conditions and pay are driven down for everyone[.]

That's the reality of what Mitt Romney is pushing today, however much grandfatherly rhetoric about management and workers as one big happy family he wraps it in.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 08:21 AM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, Progressive Hippie, and Daily Kos.

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

    •  Most people have a hard time understanding (0+ / 0-)

      why when a Union Security clause is in force, an employee could choose to not join the union, but would still be required to pay union dues and be represented by the union for compensation and terms of employment.  Most people would think that not joining the union means there are no dues and no union representation.   For all practical purposes, most people see this situation as being required to join a union and the difference is an ignorable detail.

      Other than being able to vote within the union and having a role in the union, there is not much of a difference between joining and not joining the union - or are there other practical differences between joining and not joining that I am missing?

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:44:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Labour Isn't Working" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Interesting that Romney's taking a page from the Tories in Britain with that last screen on the video. Looks like a straight-up steal of Conservative Party's 1978 campaign billboard:

      Join the fight for student power on campus:

      by Liberaltarian on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 10:27:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The "my workers are happy" line (15+ / 0-)

    is as old as the union movement.  Just transferred over from the cotton fields.

  •  Romney is trying to make anti-unionism (13+ / 0-)

    his ticket to be punched by the nutjobs who vote in Republican primaries and caucuses.

    •  And Romney has found sure-fire way to get unions (5+ / 0-)

      to return thier support for Obama.  

    •  At least he's out of the closet... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      he used to give a lot of lip service to unionism.  

      one example...

      “Unions have played a very important role historically in balancing in some cases the egregious actions of some employers and have been important to the development of our economy,” Romney said at a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire

      Seems like he does it every time he comes back to MI, too.  Now he's out of the closet and can't make that claim anymore, unless this isn't going to be regarded as a factual statement.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 10:13:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I used to work for a small, family-owned... (12+ / 0-) engineering and surveying firm, in an old and wealthy suburb of Chicago. Guess what political party they belonged to? Yep, and they were so pleased as punch when Reagan won the election. I could have worked there for the rest of my life and made what could be considered "professional minimum wage" as a civil engineer, or maybe taken a shot at romancing the boss's grandaughter and married into the family, and the business. I decided to try for a job elsewhere.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 08:38:34 AM PDT

    •  If you had married into that family, you could.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah, Plubius, JML9999

      ... still blog here, y'know. I think it would be OK with everyone.

      Well maybe not everyone.....

      "So, am I right or what?"

      by itzik shpitzik on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:08:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  First, my personal ethics precluded that... (3+ / 0-)

        ...second, the son-in-law who is the father of the woman in question did marry into the family, and for a time, the business, until he found work in Connecticut. He probably would have put the kibosh on any romance. And this was 33 years ago, so I'm looooong past that chapter in my life.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:38:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The real kicker is many of your (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      fellow Americans would not only jump at that chance, they'd push an old lady to ground to get ahead in the long line for that position. Only for  a stable income, no matter how low.  

      That is what 40 years of neoliberalism gets you...

  •  What's in it for freeloaders to encourage (4+ / 0-)

    others to be freeloaders just like them?

    Influence, power and the satisfaction of knowing that other people are just as selfish, at no cost to themselves.

    It's no skin off Romney's nose to have workers exploited.  Indeed, like Pontius Pilate, he can wash his hands of the whole matter, stand silent while the employers do their thing.

    But, when authority stands silent in the face of abuse, it become complicit.

    by hannah on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 08:50:34 AM PDT

  •  WalMart is one big dysfunctional family (7+ / 0-)

    where abuse is the norm.

    Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ BILL MOYERS

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:04:15 AM PDT

  •  So, is THIS his idea of a jobs (8+ / 0-)

    program?  Get rid of unions, jobs flourish like mushrooms??

  •  seriously, this guys record of buying and gutting (6+ / 0-)

    business's needs to be front and center.  I freaking
    can't believe we keep having to do the same thing
    over and over again.  Good grief, I can't stand these

    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." Ansel Adams............. "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers

    by Statusquomustgo on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

  •  re Union campaign donations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaulVA, Dirtandiron

    Aren't Unions required by federal law to reveal donors and donations?
    Did the Supremes end this with their "corporations are people" scam?

    GOP 2012 campaign ads - "Tax the working poor!"

    by MartyM on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:40 AM PDT

  •  "Right To Work"... Yeah, I could tell you just how (10+ / 0-)

    great it is.  Let me start by saying in a RTW state, the wages for the same task/position and responsibilites compensate about 5% - 10% less than the prevailing wages structure elswhere.

    That's just a start.....

    Terminating (firing) a person from their job for whatever the reason (employer's discretion without recourse or review or justification) is another story, for another time....

    Oh yeah... Just what this country needs now for a nationwide labor policy.  

    "You can't always get what you want; but if you try sometimes...." - Rolling Stones

    by LamontCranston on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:47 AM PDT

  •  Romney needs to be (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plubius, MrJersey, Matt Z, Dirtandiron

    Called on this - Hang the Lie around his neck like a Dirty Toilet Seat...

    The man who knows and knows he knows not is a wise man

    by OpherGopher on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:10:08 AM PDT

    •  As abhorrent as this ad is, this is the sort of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Dirtandiron

      thing that Romney perhaps thinks will endear him to the Republican primary electorate.  If he wins the nomination, it will be long enough in the past for the general electorate to have forgotten since no national Democrat actually makes the case for union rights these days unless they are pandering for votes.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:51:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Add to that the details as to just what Bain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Capital did to workers in this country, and their jobs and how it made Romney a wealthy citizen doing it.

      This greedy putz cannot, and must not get away with this dirty historical past.

      "You can't always get what you want; but if you try sometimes...." - Rolling Stones

      by LamontCranston on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:58:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Show your outrage at the TV Stations (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, Matt Z, Dirtandiron

    that air this rubbish. Picket them, robocall into them to disrupt their telephone service, attack their Facebook pages pointing to the facts that aren't mentioned in the misleading ads. Raise hell with passion for what you're fighting for. We've got to assume there are no rules in this fight, just like the other side does.

  •  Apparently, the CEO of Massey Energy, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, Dirtandiron

    Don Blankenship, was unavailable to perform in Willard's video.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:12:57 AM PDT

  •  It's starting to sound like a nation-wide strike (7+ / 0-)

    may be the besr appraoch the middle class has left.

  •  Hear this kind of stuff on DK all the time. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    An Affirming Flame, Dirtandiron
    warm grandpa mode, talking plaintively about how his business is a family and he has "reasonable confidence" his workers are happy

    Plenty of petit bourgeoisie on DK who claim they treat their hired hands real well.  "My employees love me."  "They don't want to make decisions.  They want to leave that to me."  "They know I care about them."

    And I wonder how these DK folks would take to their workers trying to organize a Wobbly shop in their business?  Probably about the same way as this grandpa.

    Romney's ad men are tuned in well to their intended audience.

    •  The ad is also very cleverly written. (5+ / 0-)

      The old man is only asking questions about unions, then hypothetically answers yes to his own questions, and responds negatively to that.  It's a workaround - he's not technically lying.

      Ex.  Is Glenn Beck a rapist?  Really?  Well then, I think he should be in prison.

    •  Let's say EVERY entrepreneur, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stunzeed, Plubius, Matt Z

      liberal and conservative, would prefer that their workforce not organize themselves.  Perhaps the liberal ones are secretly and hypocritically donating money to Crossroads GPS and other anti-union PACs.  So what?  This is all the more reason why the rights of America's workers to collectively bargain should be strengthened, not weakened, in our laws.

      Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

      by Greasy Grant on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:30:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The State will never be a protector... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        An Affirming Flame, Dirtandiron

        of the right to organize because the State is the servant of Capital.

        The Wagner Act was passed not to help the labor movement.  The CIO was doing just fine using militant direct action like the Flint plant seizure.  They were winning strikes and adding new members in the millions.  The Wagner Act offered a devil's bargain:

        We'll quit sending out the militia to crack your heads when you try to organize if you'll agree to play by the rules we set.

        We see where the Wagner Act, combined with Taft-Hartley, has gotten labor in the last 75 years: dead and buried.

        The only thing that can save it is a return to solidarity unionism.  Close down the fancy offices in D.C.  Quit panting after the Democratic Party.  Ignore Taft-Hartley.  Keep it local and grass roots.

        Emma Goldman had it right:

        People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.

        No one, especially the State, ever "gives" you rights.

    •  What is DK? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greasy Grant, stunzeed

      The Daily Kos?

      If so, what?

  •  Seems like it would be a lot more fair (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, nextstep

    if non-union workers in a unionized workplace got the same wages and benefits, with mandatory contributions towards negotiating time ... but did NOT get the legal protection that in my thought should go to full union members.   Shouldn't the union be able to provide some kind of differential or incentive, such that it gives more to its members than to its non-members?  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:14:08 AM PDT

    •  Not joining should mean no union benefits and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobpeoplepower, Dirtandiron

      no union dues.

      If a person does not join the union why should they receive the same compensation and work rules as union employees?  

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:51:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see your point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but it would create problems and might even be illegal for 2 persons hired at the same time for the same position with the same skills and qualifications, to openly be awarded different compensation.  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 10:09:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is an inherent difference in that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          one employee is subject to the union contract and other union related factors and the other  employee is not, so they are different by definition.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 11:18:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent point and question. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, nextstep

        The only reasonable answer I could think of as to why a non-union employee would receive the same compensation and benefits is because that is what the employer wanted to pay them? But that would be extremely sneaky. That would mean employers are paying non-union workers the same as union workers, the only difference being the non-union workers would have more in their paycheck since union dues that are properly funnelled to progressive politicians who fight for workers would not be deducted. That is unfair to the union and the progressive politicians who are denied dues.

        •  The non-union worker does not have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          protectIon of due process from arbitrary job terminations, nor union negotiated work rules, such as the right to refuse overtime, or be assigned work outside of the job specification.

          There is also no reason to assume the non-union employee gets compensation in the same mixture between salary, hourly wage, overtime, bonus, profit sharing, health and other insurance.

          If the union is doing its job, the compensation for the average non-union employee should be lower, except for skilled work when a non-union person of exceptional ability could demand a premium price for his work, or if union work rules were excessively restrictive to the business.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 11:34:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would assume the union employer makes more (0+ / 0-)

            I was just responding to the question of why a non-union employee would make the same as the union employee and the only explanation I could come up with is that is what the employer wanted to pay?
            I agree I would hope the union would focus on ensuring the the union employees make more than the non-union employee. However, I understand compensation is not all the union fights for. There is also political campaigning, overhead, salaries for administrative staff and campaign donations to coordinate, as well as general lobbying and interaction with progressive pols.

            Clearly there are many reasons for an employee to want to be in the union besides wages. In this economy, being forced to work overtime can be horrific, as can being forced to perform different type of work which can be disorienting at best and catastrophic at worst, without proper job training.

        •  You are truly an excellent example of the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          downright stupidity of a huge chunk of DKos commenters.

          You play this parody of the "liberal" -- and folks applaud you for it, not seeing the constant insults you're hurling at them.

          Folks, if you recommend this guy who screams parody --- and this post should be trivially obvious -- you really need to think deep and hard about your own mental competence.

    •  Yes, it would be more fair (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, Dirtandiron

      I doubt there is anything more dispiriting to a union worker than to provide the same benefits to a freeloader.

      And I've talked to some freeloaders—they have nothing good to say about the union and they are usually the type of worker that most needs a union's protection.

      They are scabs in disguise.

  •  There are Lies, Damned Lies (6+ / 0-)

    and GOP Talking Points.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:14:33 AM PDT

  •  While mom & pop may treat employees like family... (5+ / 0-)

    (and that can cut both ways, depending on the family!)

    ... in reality, that's not really who's "threatened" by employees organizing anyway.

    Next up for Romney: grandpa ponders whether or not toxic waste is really a bad thing?

    Followed by: grandpa says, we've always we've always strapped our dogs to the car roof!

    "So, am I right or what?"

    by itzik shpitzik on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:19:08 AM PDT

  •  ROmney's jobs plan for who? Humans or Corporation? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SwedishJewfish, Plubius, Dirtandiron

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:19:58 AM PDT

  •  If this is the kind of thing Willard thinks... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, Dirtandiron

    ...will endear him with general election voters, he is as far removed from reality as one can be. If anything, it will cost him very dearly (especially in Midwestern states he will desperately need) in the general election against President Obama. The only other question is will this lung into lunacy endear him with the lunatic tea baggers who will actually pick a Republican nominee. I seriously doubt it.

    The people united will never be defeated.

    by alaprst on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:21:22 AM PDT

  •  That nice old (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, Dirtandiron

    grandpa has an Arabic sirname.  Kfouri most likely an anglicized form of Kfoury, which is a Lebanese name.

     I wonder if Team Mitt new that or not.  

    But hat is just the kind of thing that 'exposes' Mitt's true position within the Republican party and erodes Mitt's conservative street cred with the Baggers:  $$ over Tribe.

  •  AA has been a right to work state forever. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, drewfromct, Dirtandiron

    And the median wage is about half here what it is for states with strong unions.  Right to work means you can be fired for no reason, or because someone will take your job at a lower wage.  If the rest of the country wants to work for slave wages, go ahead, get rid of unions and become right to work states.  

  •  That was then, this is now... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    True to his cult, Romney writes history in pencil.

    Don't like historical facts?  No problemo... (as long as your eraser's still usable).

  •  Where was the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Right To Work" for all the employees laid off by Bain Capital Management?

    "Right to Work" is right up there with such classsics as "War Is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", and "Arbeit Macht Frei".

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:42:59 AM PDT

  •  And now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Organized labor will have no problem telling their members why they should vote for Obama. Good job Romney.

  •  Shameless. It's frightening really that a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    sizable percentage of our population has succumbed to the dog eat dog/I've got mine mentality of the GOP.  I was hoping for something more magnanimous out of this great recession.  Human nature or Fox-induced meanspiritedness?  You decide.

    Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

    by Fury on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 09:46:33 AM PDT

  •  While I agree with the intent of diary (3+ / 0-)

    I am not sure of the distinction between the right saying you will be forced to join a union, and the law which says you aren't "forced" but you do have to pay union dues.

    What is the difference?  In the mind of the right-wingers, the dues ARE the issue because you are paying into a system that fights for higher wages, better benefits, and generally supports left-wing politics.

    I absolutely agree with the intent of the diary.  I am against the constant anti-union campaigns and propaganda trying to scare people into not possibly unionizing while they slip further and further behind financially, politically, etc.

    I'm just not so sure that fighting the whole "you will be forced to join the union" with "no you won't, you will just have to pay union dues" is really the rebuttal that will resonate.  I think it would be much more powerful message to tell people what unions have offered workers in the past, what workers have lost as unions have been broken up over the decades, and focus on the growing income equality and job losses that have occurred as a result of workers losing a unified voice.

    •  There is a huge difference, just have to look (0+ / 0-)

      through a progressive lense. It is as if you went to a store and were told you didn't have to buy anything you just had to pay for it. Don't you see the difference? You don't have to actually take the merchandise, you just have to pay for it.
      And, you only have to pay for what the union provides the other union employees, which is an avenue to have their paychecks deducted to be sent for purposes they otherwise wouldn't understand, i.e. progressive politicians.
      I hate the movement to end collective bargaining, the worst thing that could happen though is a law that didn't permit direct deduction for union dues and forced union members to write a separate check for those dues. I fear that many union members may not understand how much the union is doing for them and forget to write the bi-weekly checks.

    •  Came here to find this comment (0+ / 0-)

      I was hoping I wasn't going crazy. "No one's forcing you to join a union. All you have to do is pay money to a union in exchange for the benefits and consequences of joining a union."

      That particular bit of logic doesn't pass the cringe test. I feel uncomfortable just reading it and trying to picture someone presenting it to a general voter.

      There's plenty of nobility in the fight against RTW laws. This rhetoric reeks of desperation and a complete lack of self-awareness. It needs to be abandoned in exchange for something a little less Lewis Carroll.

  •  If Mitt is so concerned with the rights (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of the minority not to pay union fees, would he then support partial recognition for "minority unions", i.e. unions that would be required to represent thier members only?  

    I'm very much aware of how non-members burn up the resourses of a union by running to them for all kinds of little things.  This is most unfair to those who make the sacrifice and contribute to the union although they may not agree 100 percent with all of the union's positions.

    Also, wh should keep in mind that union security clauses became common during the build-up to WW II as a way to contain the radicalism and militancy that was present at that time (e.g Communists etc.)  

    "If you love your Uncle Sam, bring 'em home; bring 'em home." - Pete Seeger

    by brae70 on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 10:05:37 AM PDT

  •  WE need to work out a sharp response message (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the autonomist, Dirtandiron

    Like other commenters notice, this is the century-old rehash of "I love my workers, they are like children to me."

    We need to work out just as effective response message.  
    I think the points are:

    1.  I am sure that grandpa is a member of local Chamber of Commerce, local chapter of the lobbying organization for his indusrty, etc.  He pays them dues because these orgs help him maximize the profits.  He never asked his "family" of workers whether he should join these orgs.
    2.  Thus follows that he should butt out when his "family" wants to join the organization of their own, and pay dues that maximize their profits.
    3.  From which follows that interests of the pops and "family" are not the same.  Yes, they are interrelated, and yes, both want the business to succeed.  But they are more a relationship between customer and vendor.  Let say granddad is in manufacturing and buys steel by the ton.  Would his supplier instead of negotiating a contract with the help of lawer, etc., just go ahead and allow the price to be dictated to him?  Of course not.  Then why is the same expected of the labor?

  •  Knowing Mitt, tomorrow he'll release a PRO-union (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    video because he'll be in a town that 51% support unions.

  •  Factually incorrect? Falsehood? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Dirtandiron

    Why don't we drop the kiddie gloves and call it what it is.

    A lie.

    "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

    by skyounkin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 10:42:01 AM PDT

  •  Why can't a union just not represent a non-member? (0+ / 0-)

    It seems from the article that a union represents an employee even if the employee is not a member of the union (although it also seems that even if an employee is not a member, he still has to pay the union dues, so in essence, he is a member of the union.)

    I would think that the proper situation would be for the employer to consider itself to have 2 separate work forces - a union workforce and a non-union workforce.  A new employee being hired could not be discriminated if he were to join the union.  Obviously, the employer would find it much, MUCH easier to fire a non-union employee, so there would be a very high impetus for employees to join the union (although perhaps the employer would give "brownie points" for a non-union member?)

    The libertarian in me just thinks that it is anti-civil rights to force someone to join (or even pay) to join a union just to get a job somewhere.  I realize that unions are the best thing for the workers, but if a worker does not want to pay to get help from being mistreated, it should be his right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site