The Labor Union Myth

[Boris The Animal]

Karl Marx is popular with kids that don't know any better.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Flanders]

This article is tough to swallow without a barrel of salt:

In Escape From Rome, Scheidel writes that “a single condition was essential” for the cultural, economic, and scientific creativity of the post-Roman age: “competitive fragmentation of power.” Today, some of the positive aspects of fragmentation are appearing all around us.


​

The End of the Roman Empire Wasn’t That Bad
October 2019 Issue
James Fallows

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...he-fall-of-rome-good-news-for-america/596638/
​

America is fragmenting today because government and organized religion are determined to abolish limited government. Basically, return to the oppressive form government every ruling ruling class needs to survive. Mr. Fellows gives no indication that he understands the benefits limited government provides. (Limited government has only been tried once; so it is not hard to see the hatred it triggers among parasites.)

NOTE: I doubt if Mr. Fellows will admit that government and organized religion will always plague mankind. The trick is to limit government and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and everything worthwhile dies.

Nor does Mr. Fellows even mention:

Parasites will always find a way get paid for doing nothing more than preaching their moral garbage. That is why parasites brought down every civilization, every empire, every country, every culture that ever was, than did any other factor. This country will be no different so long as income is taxed.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?108284-The-Labor-Union-Myth&p=2760359#post2760359

Parenthetically, nobody can believe in theocracy and the U.S. Constitution at the same time. It is either one or the other, yet every generation produces a legion of fools who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible. Tell fools they are demanding a theocracy and they will call you a criminal. In short: Nothing will bring out angry sign-carriers at every demonstration faster than believing whatever Big Brother tells them, while hardcore Communists know better.

Finally, Socialism and democracy are the tools being used this time around:

I have railed against the Democracy Movement in a thousand messages. Make no mistake about the Democracy Movement —— it is the most insidious conspiracy ever devised to destroy this country’s individual liberties. Throughout history democracy has been the parasite’s preferred form of government. If that is not enough to tell you about the kind of people behind the Democracy Movement, this should scare you stiff: Democracy is always going towards something worse; never towards liberty.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-You-Professor-Williams&p=3227492#post3227492

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE
​

Many public sector unions said in the months following the Janus ruling that they would redouble grassroots outreach to build members. "In fact, our union is growing. Since Janus, we’ve had 11 organizing wins. Union members have sent a clear message: We are sticking with the union,” AFT President Randi Weingarten said in January.
​

Major teachers union suffers loss following 2018 Janus Supreme Court ruling
by Sean Higgins
October 09, 2019 04:45 PM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ce=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated
​

Private sector union members have to organize against GOVERNMENT UNIONS.

 

[Flanders]

The Deliberate Misconception of Socialism
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
November 6, 2019

https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-deliberate-misconception-of-socialism
​

Let me add this to Dr. Paugh’s brilliant analysis of Socialism:

. . . Equal Distribution of the Wealth is unworkable; so American Communists replaced it with Circulation of the Wealth. There was one inherent flaw in utopian economics. As tax dollars circulate time after time the parasite class consumes more and more of the nation’s wealth. At least working Americans before 1913 had the choice of working for themselves in the private sector during boom and bust cycles; whereas, Circulation of the Wealth forces every private sector American to work for strangers rather than work for themselves and their loved ones.

NOTE: A majority of Americans remained employed during the worst busts before and during the Great Depression. The same is true of contemporary “downturns.”

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

We need 100% unionization. There is no reason for any worker to be unrepresented and alone.

 

[archives]

Labor unions were against bosses and not the owners? Like how fucking stupid can you be? The entire point of the labor movement is that more should go to the actual producers, and less to the leeching owners who merely receive rent while contributing nothing to society.

Wow, definitely a narrative put together by a Union busting entity like the Koch Brothers

Ever notice that there appears to be a chronological link between the shrinkage of Unions and the fading of America's middle class?

 

[archives]

When President Trump won his travel ban 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

http://time.com/5323405/supreme-court-labor-unions-decision/
​

NOTE: The SCOTUS did not address 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

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-strikes-down-public-sector-union-fees/
​

​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees is worth looking back to a brief history of the American Labor Movement.

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.
​

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/roomfordeba...yees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-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
​

​

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 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 union members in the AFL hated the CIO.

Parenthetically, there were no engineers on sailing ships. MEBA, (Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association) was founded in 1875. Jack London’s novels told us 'Butch' Raglan

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034431/

and Wolf Larsen were the villains

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034162/

but old-time seaman who sailed in the late 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century always said that engineers 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. Glorified auto mechanics eventually saw the error of their ways after unlicensed engineers organized and 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 transferring 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 United Nations/International Community (UNIC) in order to establish a universal minimum wage at the lowest possible level. A universal minimum wage 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.

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 the hated owner” —— robber barons notwithstanding. The earliest union members wanted a piece of the wealth their labors created so they could become owners. Hence, 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 suck up to a union official rather than 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 private sector union members should ever vote for labor union candidates, most especially candidates financed 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.

“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895).
​

At the time that pronouncement was laid down in Europe it sounded pretty good to people who had no property. The basic method used to impose a Communist dictate on American homeowners is quite simple: Confiscation.

Do not pay your property taxes and Socialist teachers’ unions will bounce you out into the street faster than an old-time slum lord ever dreamed of doing. I am singling out the teachers’ unions because they are the primary beneficiaries of property taxes but they are not the only ones.

Increasing local property taxes enriches parasites in the education industry. So with billions of property tax dollars going to education industry parasites every year how come American children are getting dumber by the hour? The day is not far off when a vast majority of Americans will be legally defined as idiots. I say Americans because ill-educated children become dumb adults.

From a Socialist/Communist perspective property taxes are a far greater detriment to individual liberties than the income tax because property taxes give teachers’ unions, far more leverage over the homeowner than does the income tax.

Incidentally, you never hear politicians of any stripe brag about property taxes being up, too. Big government parasites do not want homeowners in communities where taxes are still relatively low noticing that Socialism is slowly creeping its way towards them.

Note that parasites also bankrupt the public education system. Not to worry about that one. Teachers’ unions have their own key to the public trough.

The federal government turning to property taxes for more revenue should be a very real fear to Americans because candidates for federal office sweat bullets at the thought of turning the teachers’ unions against them. Why should that be? Property taxes are levied by each state or local community; so anyone running for federal office should not be afraid of the teachers’ unions. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of politicians are afraid because teachers’ unions want office-holders in Washington indebted to teachers.

Major and minor political parties cater to, as well as fear, the teachers’ unions because the Ministry of Propaganda is squarely on the side of teachers feeding at the tax tub for all they can get.

Wow, definitely a narrative put together by a Union busting entity like the Koch Brothers

Ever notice that there appears to be a chronological link between the shrinkage of Unions and the fading of America's middle class?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

To You thought it was: Try not to be an asshole all of your life. Make an effort to learn the difference between owners and ABSENTEE OWNERS.



The so-called robber barons were essential in building this country. If you were on a real jury you would have found Roark guilty:

They were also, by the standards of our day, criminals. Not only that it was their bad behavior that was the impetus behind our current laws that would make them criminals today. When you look at the business activities of the Rockefeller dynasty it's simply amazing that someone did not assassinate him. He undoubtably had to be a psychopath as he had no compunction of stealing property from others and then destroying them personally.

 

[zymurgy]

We need 100% unionization. There is no reason for any worker to be unrepresented and alone.

things that are fair, are fair for all individuals

if employees can unite for the purpose of artificially raising the cost of labor, can employers unite for the purpose of artificially raising the cost of goods?

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE
​

Democrats are sadly mistaken if they believe they can recapture their glory days of labor union violence. Democrats forget that the Parasite Class feeds on the wealth created in the private sector. So Democrats looking for violence will only find it in public sector union members beating up private sector Americans.

Note that JFK created government unions by executive order:

XXXXX
​

​

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 private sector unions are part of the American people.

In short: No American working man is going bust his own head in order to give the Parasite Class more wealth and authority. That is exactly what Democrats are asking for.

Make no mistake about abolishing right-to-work laws —— violence is the one and only way Democrats can get the absolute political power they are after:

In 1947, over President Harry Truman’s veto, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act. In doing so, it put an end to a long-since-forgotten era of labor unrest and paved the way to the prosperous 1950s.

Taft-Hartley curbed some of the worst excesses of Depression-era law that govern labor unions even to this day. Its greatest contribution to our modern governance was the state right-to-work law. States could forbid the pernicious practice of forcing workers to pay a union as a condition of their employment. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress, out of obedience to the Big Labor bosses who underwrite their campaigns, are threatening to repeal and ban all such laws with new legislation. Their bill is inaptly referred to as the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act.”

Of course, the “right to organize” is not really under threat, but workers’ desire to band together in unions is vanishing as part of the natural course of events. Wherever workers have been legally freed from mandatory union dues or fees, they have consistently opted to stop paying. As a result, union bosses’ massive paychecks, expense accounts, and cash to spend on their favorite Democratic officeholders are under threat. This is what Democrats want to preserve in the face of workers' consistent choice to be free of such predatory constraints.

Unions have no relevance for most younger workers, and many states have adopted right-to-work laws in recent years to protect them from forced unionism. This has Democrats in a panic.

Unions face other problems. A big one is that the traditional employer-employee relationship is itself on the wane. The expenses and hassles that regulation, taxation, and mandates have loaded onto traditional, formal employment are prompting more and more employers to consider automation or contracting. More and more workers are going outside the formal, corporate employment structure, doing business for themselves in the gig economy. It is believed that 36% of the working population already do such jobs at least part time.

Bills that prop up moribund labor unions and create greater inefficiencies will do no good, and will actually accelerate this trend, forcing a too-fast transition that will harm many more workers than they help.

When this legislation is proposed in coming weeks, it will not pass. But it must also not go unnoticed. Democratic attacks on the right to work will only become stronger, especially if they continue their efforts to break down the rule of law. If Democrats manage to take control of the Senate and abolish the filibuster, pro-union, anti-worker policy will become a top priority.

The repeal of right-to-work laws would reimpose upon large and now prosperous areas of America the very sort of labor rules that used to hold them back, from a time no one remembers anymore. Many of today’s baby boomers were not yet born when Taft-Hartley passed. In those times, the South was a backwater and the mountain West an undeveloped, provincial region. Those regions’ embrace of right-to-work laws was part of what helped them take the lead in our country’s economy in the modern era. It is no accident that 11 out of CNBC’s top 15 states for business are right-to-work states, or that right-to-work states enjoy lower unemployment, or that personal incomes in those states grew 50% faster between 2001 and 2016.

Democratic efforts to abolish right-to-work laws should be viewed as the rejection of seven decades of sound labor policy, the economic equivalent of resurrecting the polio virus and setting it loose on unsuspecting populations. Washington has no business fouling up the healthy business climates of the nation’s best-run states, just as a kickback to union bosses for their partisan contributions and activism. The abolition of the right to work would be a quid pro quo for unions and a knife between the ribs of the workers whom organized labor is supposed to represent.


​

Democrats aim to abolish right-to-work laws
by Washington Examiner
December 16, 2019 12:00 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/democrats-aim-to-abolish-right-to-work-laws
​

 

[midcan5]

The SCOTUS is too often the tool of money and power. The idea they are fair arbitrators of anything at all is kinda funny. Read their history and wake up.

"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed" Clarence Darrow

"Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law. "

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

All history is a history of class struggles, and without strong trades unions you get a dictatorship by the rich - it's as simple as that, as we see swiftly being demonstrated in both the USA and the UK. The main problem, always, is for the membership to see that the Union represents them, otherwise it is simply a copy of the class-dictatorship they have to live in.

 

[Flanders]

All history is a history of class struggles,

To Penderyn: No it is not.

History has always been a struggle between individual liberties and oppressive government. Every other struggle is subordinate. In fact, the government created by the Founders is the first time in history the struggle is being fought openly.

Here are the main foes of limited government. Note that do-gooders and democracy’s parasites have been at it the longest:

1. Do-gooders.

2. The Democracy Movement.

3. Economic equality.

More recently and just as poisonous:

4. Race hustlers.

5. The UNIC (United Nations/International Community.)

6. International law.

7. Open-borders.

There are too many minor struggles to list, but the ancient conflict is obvious.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

To Penderyn: No it is not.

History has always been a struggle between individual liberties and oppressive government. Every other struggle is subordinate. In fact, the government created by the Founders is the first time in history the struggle is being fought openly.

Here are the main foes of limited government. Note that do-gooders and democracy’s parasites have been at it the longest:

1. Do-gooders.

2. The Democracy Movement.

3. Economic equality.

More recently and just as poisonous:

4. Race hustlers.

5. The UNIC (United Nations/International Community.)

6. International law.

7. Open-borders.

There are too many minor struggles to list, but the ancient conflict is obvious.

You can see it that way, if it keeps you happy, but it leaves out huge periods of time, and most of the movements you mention are means either to divide the majority or to distract its atterntion from the constant reality of exploitation. 'Do-gooding' is normally just a sign, at absolute best, of a guilty conscience in the boss-class: usually it is just a cover for real class struggles.

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE
​

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...00px-Right_to_work_campaign_badge,_c.1976.jpg
​

Slowly but surely decisions like this are erasing Socialism's/Communism's grip on our laws:

Right-to-work simply means that a union cannot get a worker fired for not paying the union. A right-to-work law gives workers the freedom to support a union if they are doing a good job, and refrain from supporting a union if they wish.
​

West Virginia Supreme Court Decision Could Lead to National Right to Work
by F. Vincent Vernuccio
June 3, 2020, 12:11 AM

https://spectator.org/west-virginia-supreme-court-decision-could-lead-to-national-right-to-work/
​

NOTE: A labor union’s permission to work is a pillar holding up the Communist revolution taking place in our cities. Put it in perspective by examining how elected Democrats are preventing Americans from working under the guise of stopping COVID-19 from spreading.