Union Politics at AA
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
- Status
We must be careful!
Expressing any conservative political views will leave us declared ANTI-UNION.
Who would have thought that we would one day have to be ANTI-AMERICAN to be disignated PRO-UNION????
If that be the case, may choice is made.
One Nation Under God!
Expressing any conservative political views will leave us declared ANTI-UNION.
Who would have thought that we would one day have to be ANTI-AMERICAN to be disignated PRO-UNION????
If that be the case, may choice is made.
One Nation Under God!
Oliver Stone''s Apprentice
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 786
- Reaction score
- 0
Buck and Dave, no more moderating from me. I'm gladly playing participant these days, since it is far more rewarding. I can actually voice an opinion and be impartial, and there's no need to be politically correct when responding to a total a$$#()!@ (not that either of you fall into that category, but I can think of a few who do!).
The only thing that seems to get a moderator's attention around here is foul language, openly bashing US Airways or one of their unions, or not respecting favorite son Chip's expertise... Any of those will get a thread closed right away, so you're probably safe for now.
[Blockquote]
Who would have thought that we would one day have to be ANTI-AMERICAN to be disignated PRO-UNION????
[/Blockquote]
Sad, isn't it? Some folks still believe that to be a true unionist you'd need to also be a socialist. Look at UWW or IWWW or whoever it was that showed up on PBB at the very end...
The only thing that seems to get a moderator's attention around here is foul language, openly bashing US Airways or one of their unions, or not respecting favorite son Chip's expertise... Any of those will get a thread closed right away, so you're probably safe for now.
[Blockquote]
Who would have thought that we would one day have to be ANTI-AMERICAN to be disignated PRO-UNION????
[/Blockquote]
Sad, isn't it? Some folks still believe that to be a true unionist you'd need to also be a socialist. Look at UWW or IWWW or whoever it was that showed up on PBB at the very end...
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
Eric,
Let me put it this way. In my point of view, you are beginning to understand at least my perspective. The pure left wing liberal agenda has taken unionism to a 15% percentile among the total work force. It is time for unions to dissolve the pure left wing manifesto and concentrate on those items that the worker needs to improve himself. We must remember that while we are there to earn a salary to take care of our needs, we also have to remember who our customer is.
Let me put it this way. In my point of view, you are beginning to understand at least my perspective. The pure left wing liberal agenda has taken unionism to a 15% percentile among the total work force. It is time for unions to dissolve the pure left wing manifesto and concentrate on those items that the worker needs to improve himself. We must remember that while we are there to earn a salary to take care of our needs, we also have to remember who our customer is.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 9:56:27 PM eolesen wrote:
Buck and Dave, no more moderating from me. I'm gladly playing participant these days, since it is far more rewarding. I can actually voice an opinion and be impartial, and there's no need to be politically correct when responding to a total a$$#()!@ (not that either of you fall into that category, but I can think of a few who do!).
[/blockquote]
This is good news! I feel certain that myself and others will benefit from your participant unfettered access.
I should let you know that your attempt to moderate a debate between myself and TWU supporters on PB was appreciated. I have no idea what you actually went through as a result of that move, nor do I want to know.
Let's just leave at this I appreciate what you attempted, and both admire and respect you for that!
Unfortunately, the battle against AA, TWU, and ignorance was more than we could handle in Tulsa and we failed to get enough support for an election. Maybe someday... (((soon after next contract)))...the truth will shine.
Now back to politics:
[blockquote]
AIR LINE PILOTS / UNION DUES
Pilot Union Forced to Return nearly $700K in Illegal Dues
In response to legal action brought by attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) union is returning $672,000.00 in dues and interest to 330 non-union airline employees.
The settlement brings to close a long-running case that reached the United States Supreme Court. In addition to returning the dues money, the ALPA officials are required to change the accounting procedures they use to determine how much non-union employees pay in agency fees. These changes may reduce the difficulties faced by airline employees in reclaiming forced dues used to pay for union politics and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
Although many of the airline workers represented by Foundation attorneys live in states with Right to Work laws, they are not protected from compulsory unionism. The airline industry is regulated by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which imposes compulsory unionism despite state Right to Work laws.
The illegally confiscated dues are being returned pursuant to the settlement of two related suits brought by Foundation attorneys, Miller v. ALPA and Shackelford v. ALPA. Foundation attorneys won the Miller case at the U.S. Supreme Court with a 7-2 ruling that non-union workers cannot be forced into internal union kangaroo courts before taking their constitutional claims into federal court.
Among other things, the suit alleged that ALPA officials violated First Amendment protections as articulated in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson.Under Hudson, union officials must provide independently audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees who choose chosen to refrain from union membership. [/blockquote]
So much for the guy that claims a Union cannot violate your first amendment rights?
----------------
On 9/29/2002 9:56:27 PM eolesen wrote:
Buck and Dave, no more moderating from me. I'm gladly playing participant these days, since it is far more rewarding. I can actually voice an opinion and be impartial, and there's no need to be politically correct when responding to a total a$$#()!@ (not that either of you fall into that category, but I can think of a few who do!).
[/blockquote]
This is good news! I feel certain that myself and others will benefit from your participant unfettered access.
I should let you know that your attempt to moderate a debate between myself and TWU supporters on PB was appreciated. I have no idea what you actually went through as a result of that move, nor do I want to know.
Let's just leave at this I appreciate what you attempted, and both admire and respect you for that!
Unfortunately, the battle against AA, TWU, and ignorance was more than we could handle in Tulsa and we failed to get enough support for an election. Maybe someday... (((soon after next contract)))...the truth will shine.
Now back to politics:
[blockquote]
AIR LINE PILOTS / UNION DUES
Pilot Union Forced to Return nearly $700K in Illegal Dues
In response to legal action brought by attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) union is returning $672,000.00 in dues and interest to 330 non-union airline employees.
The settlement brings to close a long-running case that reached the United States Supreme Court. In addition to returning the dues money, the ALPA officials are required to change the accounting procedures they use to determine how much non-union employees pay in agency fees. These changes may reduce the difficulties faced by airline employees in reclaiming forced dues used to pay for union politics and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
Although many of the airline workers represented by Foundation attorneys live in states with Right to Work laws, they are not protected from compulsory unionism. The airline industry is regulated by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which imposes compulsory unionism despite state Right to Work laws.
The illegally confiscated dues are being returned pursuant to the settlement of two related suits brought by Foundation attorneys, Miller v. ALPA and Shackelford v. ALPA. Foundation attorneys won the Miller case at the U.S. Supreme Court with a 7-2 ruling that non-union workers cannot be forced into internal union kangaroo courts before taking their constitutional claims into federal court.
Among other things, the suit alleged that ALPA officials violated First Amendment protections as articulated in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson.Under Hudson, union officials must provide independently audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees who choose chosen to refrain from union membership. [/blockquote]
So much for the guy that claims a Union cannot violate your first amendment rights?
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
Eric,
I guess ol' yogi berra was right.
it's deja vu all over again
Welcome back Dave and Buck(not that you've really left, buck)
And I'm willing to bet you 2 characters have still NOT visited (O V's) office, up in Gods Country(Laconia NH.)
IMHO, you AMT's are still right about AMFA,
BUT
WRONG about right to work, and the GOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
God help us all in the next contract !!!!!!!!!!!1
I guess ol' yogi berra was right.
it's deja vu all over again
Welcome back Dave and Buck(not that you've really left, buck)
And I'm willing to bet you 2 characters have still NOT visited (O V's) office, up in Gods Country(Laconia NH.)
IMHO, you AMT's are still right about AMFA,
BUT
WRONG about right to work, and the GOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
God help us all in the next contract !!!!!!!!!!!1
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/30/2002 5:49:23 AM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
IMHO, you AMT's are still right about AMFA,
BUT
WRONG about "right to work", and the "GOP" !!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Would you care to share specifics on why you think we are wrong on either?
----------------
On 9/30/2002 5:49:23 AM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
IMHO, you AMT's are still right about AMFA,
BUT
WRONG about "right to work", and the "GOP" !!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Would you care to share specifics on why you think we are wrong on either?
Get Over It Already
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 1
[blockquote]
what is our position on RTW?
[/blockquote]
Ask Jim Little. I'm sure he'll tell you.
what is our position on RTW?
[/blockquote]
Ask Jim Little. I'm sure he'll tell you.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/29/2002 9:56:27 PM eolesen wrote:[BR][BR]Buck and Dave, no more moderating from me. I'm gladly playing participant these days, since it is far more rewarding. I can actually voice an opinion and be impartial, and there's no need to be politically correct when responding to a total a$$#()!@ (not that either of you fall into that category, but I can think of a few who do!). [BR][BR]The only thing that seems to get a moderator's attention around here is foul language, openly bashing US Airways or one of their unions, or not respecting favorite son Chip's expertise... Any of those will get a thread closed right away, so you're probably safe for now.[BR][BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR][BR]Let me disagree here. We keep a tight lid on abusive behavior and have shut threads/issued warnings on any number of boards and on any number of members regardless of their affiliations.[BR][BR]As to US, judging by the number of posts there, its pretty obvious why most have related to US Airways. Finally, your comment concerning favorite son Chip is inapt to say the least. He has been cautioned about certain posting and his comments often raise controversial points which receive responses that are often [EM]ad hominem[/EM] as opposed to actually discussing the subject at hand. There are plenty of other posters who are as controversial yet are not censured unless their conduct is contrary to the rules and guidelines.[/P]
[P]Further commentary/debate can be raised in private mail.[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/29/2002 9:56:27 PM eolesen wrote:[BR][BR]Buck and Dave, no more moderating from me. I'm gladly playing participant these days, since it is far more rewarding. I can actually voice an opinion and be impartial, and there's no need to be politically correct when responding to a total a$$#()!@ (not that either of you fall into that category, but I can think of a few who do!). [BR][BR]The only thing that seems to get a moderator's attention around here is foul language, openly bashing US Airways or one of their unions, or not respecting favorite son Chip's expertise... Any of those will get a thread closed right away, so you're probably safe for now.[BR][BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR][BR]Let me disagree here. We keep a tight lid on abusive behavior and have shut threads/issued warnings on any number of boards and on any number of members regardless of their affiliations.[BR][BR]As to US, judging by the number of posts there, its pretty obvious why most have related to US Airways. Finally, your comment concerning favorite son Chip is inapt to say the least. He has been cautioned about certain posting and his comments often raise controversial points which receive responses that are often [EM]ad hominem[/EM] as opposed to actually discussing the subject at hand. There are plenty of other posters who are as controversial yet are not censured unless their conduct is contrary to the rules and guidelines.[/P]
[P]Further commentary/debate can be raised in private mail.[/P]
Agency fees don't seem to be in question . . . only the percentage that is charged for representation and not extra union benefits/political contributions, etc. Reasonable people can disagree on that.
That said, leaches that enjoy the compensation and benefits of union negotiated contracts, then want to weasle out of agency fees altogether . . . . well, the words that describe them aren't repeatable in polite company.
That said, leaches that enjoy the compensation and benefits of union negotiated contracts, then want to weasle out of agency fees altogether . . . . well, the words that describe them aren't repeatable in polite company.
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Buck,[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][/FONT][/SPAN] [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]This article about the [STRONG]Communications Workers of America [/STRONG]sponsoring last weekends leftie-anarchist demonstrations says a lot about where their heads are at![/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][/FONT][/SPAN] [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]AirLocker[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]---------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SPAN] [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman]Who's Really Behind The Protest Curtain?[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]By David Martosko [/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Cybercast News Service[BR]CNSNews.com Commentary [BR]September 27, 2002[/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT size=3][FONT face=Times New Roman] [?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com😱ffice😱ffice /][o😛][/o😛][/FONT][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT size=3][FONT face=Times New Roman] [o😛][/o😛][/FONT][/FONT][/P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA]A funny thing happened on the way to the anti-global protests in Washington, D.C[FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]. The self-proclaimed anarchist and anti-authoritarian architects of this weekend's promised mayhem have dressed up their event in enough order and organization to make a wedding planner blush. And they had plenty of help.[/FONT][BR][BR]Of course, we know what to expect from our first big post-Bin Laden protest event. Hooded, disaffected teenagers waving signs and banners, wandering angry mobs, gripes about the capitalist greed that keeps our families clothed and fed, perhaps some creative PR for Iraq, a little tear gas here and there, maybe a burning flag or two. And shouting. Lots of shouting.[BR][BR]We've seen this all before. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]Every time a potpourri of violent anarchists and militant socialists descend on our nation's capital, we hold our collective breath and wait for the storm to pass.[/FONT] No big deal, right? The same strange mixture of wackos threatens to shut the city down every few years, and hardly anyone (save those who work near the World Bank) really seems to mind.[BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]We should mind. We should be royally ticked off. Because the blame this time around lies not just with the usual hodgepodge of anachronistic socialist groups that draw supporters from our most impressionable college undergrads. [/FONT]You've heard their names before: the Mobilization for Global Justice, the 50 Years Is Enough network, and the candidly named Anti-Capitalist Convergence.[BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]Surprise! The list of those aiding and abetting this year's national disgrace includes a host of mainstream activist groups, straining to publicly assert that their agendas are actually moderate and sensible. Their chosen strategy is ensuring that someone else's party line is even more radical than their own.[BR][/FONT][BR]We're talking about Greenpeace. And Friends of the Earth. And the AFL-CIO. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99 size=5][FONT size=3]And the [/FONT][STRONG]Communications Workers of America. [/STRONG][/FONT]And Ralph Nader's Essential Action group. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]All of these are acknowledged co-sponsors of whatever downtown destruction your television set brings you this weekend. [BR][/FONT][BR]If reports of an anarchist scavenger hunt turn out to be accurate, let's hope we all hold the right people accountable when the dust settles. Three hundred points to whack a CEO in the head? You can't make this stuff up.[BR][BR]On Friday and Saturday, as we see the mythical rich -vs- poor dramas unfold on CNN, it might be useful to remember two things. First, that the combined net worth of these sponsoring groups is well over $200 million; they can afford the best in image-control to make sure their messages are spun just so. Second, behemoth-sized organizations like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth don't get involved with ground-level pavement scrums unless there's something in it for them.[BR][BR]That something is political cover for their social agenda. No matter how ridiculous Greenpeace activists may sound advocating Leftist environmental, trade, labor, or energy policies, they'll always sound slightly less radical if the anarchist movement has already staked out even more extreme positions.[BR][BR]The same thing has happened over the past 20 years with regard to the animal-rights movement: In 1980, vegetarians were considered the lunatic fringe. Today strict vegans, to say nothing of violent animal-liberation terrorists, have made your garden-variety meatless eater seem mainstream by comparison.[BR][BR]Biotech food provides another good example. When Friends of the Earth agitates for the costly and unnecessary labeling of genetically improved foods, or when Greenpeace demands the total conversion of American agriculture to 1950s-style organic growing, it ought to make our blood boil. [BR][BR]But we're too busy to notice, because even more disturbing lunatics - many of them presently in Washington - are justifying African starvation (in Zambia, for instance, where offers of biotech food aid have been repeatedly rebuffed) in the name of genetic purity and food security.[BR][BR]This is not to say that either Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth would support feeding biotech grain to starving Zambians. Make no mistake about it - these groups have definitely abandoned save the earth in favor of starve the children. But by getting full-blown socialists to advocate this position for them, the Greenpeaces of the world can at least try to keep their hands blood-free.[BR][BR]Greenpeace, for all its multi-million-dollar bluster, still needs, and uses, the far-out environmental kooks. Similarly, mainstream labor leaders desperately need the communitarians from the social justice movement, with their misnamed living wage crusades that punish low-skilled job seekers. [BR][BR]And Ralph Nader, with his off-the-scale nutty brand of social activism, needs the Anti-Capitalist Convergence. Without the candid extremists, mainstream groups find themselves even more on the political fringes than they already are. And that's a difficult position from which to be taken seriously.[BR][BR]So in order to claim the political center, ordinary activist groups give their stamp of approval to unrest, disruption, and risk to life and limb. In doing so, environmental, labor, and anti-free-trade nonprofits are also tacitly endorsing this weekend's stated goal: We are striving toward the abolition of capitalism![BR][BR]Funny - Greenpeace takes in over $23 million each year in the U.S. alone - take a gander at ActivistCash.com for the proof. Ralph Nader's myriad activist groups are worth at least $19 million on paper. And globally, Friends of the Earth moves over $80 million a year. Strange balance sheets indeed for underwriters of modern socialism.[/SPAN]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][/FONT][/SPAN] [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]This article about the [STRONG]Communications Workers of America [/STRONG]sponsoring last weekends leftie-anarchist demonstrations says a lot about where their heads are at![/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][/FONT][/SPAN] [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]AirLocker[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]---------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SPAN] [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt][FONT face=Times New Roman]Who's Really Behind The Protest Curtain?[/FONT][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]By David Martosko [/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Cybercast News Service[BR]CNSNews.com Commentary [BR]September 27, 2002[/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT size=3][FONT face=Times New Roman] [?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com😱ffice😱ffice /][o😛][/o😛][/FONT][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT size=3][FONT face=Times New Roman] [o😛][/o😛][/FONT][/FONT][/P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA]A funny thing happened on the way to the anti-global protests in Washington, D.C[FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]. The self-proclaimed anarchist and anti-authoritarian architects of this weekend's promised mayhem have dressed up their event in enough order and organization to make a wedding planner blush. And they had plenty of help.[/FONT][BR][BR]Of course, we know what to expect from our first big post-Bin Laden protest event. Hooded, disaffected teenagers waving signs and banners, wandering angry mobs, gripes about the capitalist greed that keeps our families clothed and fed, perhaps some creative PR for Iraq, a little tear gas here and there, maybe a burning flag or two. And shouting. Lots of shouting.[BR][BR]We've seen this all before. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]Every time a potpourri of violent anarchists and militant socialists descend on our nation's capital, we hold our collective breath and wait for the storm to pass.[/FONT] No big deal, right? The same strange mixture of wackos threatens to shut the city down every few years, and hardly anyone (save those who work near the World Bank) really seems to mind.[BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]We should mind. We should be royally ticked off. Because the blame this time around lies not just with the usual hodgepodge of anachronistic socialist groups that draw supporters from our most impressionable college undergrads. [/FONT]You've heard their names before: the Mobilization for Global Justice, the 50 Years Is Enough network, and the candidly named Anti-Capitalist Convergence.[BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]Surprise! The list of those aiding and abetting this year's national disgrace includes a host of mainstream activist groups, straining to publicly assert that their agendas are actually moderate and sensible. Their chosen strategy is ensuring that someone else's party line is even more radical than their own.[BR][/FONT][BR]We're talking about Greenpeace. And Friends of the Earth. And the AFL-CIO. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99 size=5][FONT size=3]And the [/FONT][STRONG]Communications Workers of America. [/STRONG][/FONT]And Ralph Nader's Essential Action group. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff99]All of these are acknowledged co-sponsors of whatever downtown destruction your television set brings you this weekend. [BR][/FONT][BR]If reports of an anarchist scavenger hunt turn out to be accurate, let's hope we all hold the right people accountable when the dust settles. Three hundred points to whack a CEO in the head? You can't make this stuff up.[BR][BR]On Friday and Saturday, as we see the mythical rich -vs- poor dramas unfold on CNN, it might be useful to remember two things. First, that the combined net worth of these sponsoring groups is well over $200 million; they can afford the best in image-control to make sure their messages are spun just so. Second, behemoth-sized organizations like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth don't get involved with ground-level pavement scrums unless there's something in it for them.[BR][BR]That something is political cover for their social agenda. No matter how ridiculous Greenpeace activists may sound advocating Leftist environmental, trade, labor, or energy policies, they'll always sound slightly less radical if the anarchist movement has already staked out even more extreme positions.[BR][BR]The same thing has happened over the past 20 years with regard to the animal-rights movement: In 1980, vegetarians were considered the lunatic fringe. Today strict vegans, to say nothing of violent animal-liberation terrorists, have made your garden-variety meatless eater seem mainstream by comparison.[BR][BR]Biotech food provides another good example. When Friends of the Earth agitates for the costly and unnecessary labeling of genetically improved foods, or when Greenpeace demands the total conversion of American agriculture to 1950s-style organic growing, it ought to make our blood boil. [BR][BR]But we're too busy to notice, because even more disturbing lunatics - many of them presently in Washington - are justifying African starvation (in Zambia, for instance, where offers of biotech food aid have been repeatedly rebuffed) in the name of genetic purity and food security.[BR][BR]This is not to say that either Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth would support feeding biotech grain to starving Zambians. Make no mistake about it - these groups have definitely abandoned save the earth in favor of starve the children. But by getting full-blown socialists to advocate this position for them, the Greenpeaces of the world can at least try to keep their hands blood-free.[BR][BR]Greenpeace, for all its multi-million-dollar bluster, still needs, and uses, the far-out environmental kooks. Similarly, mainstream labor leaders desperately need the communitarians from the social justice movement, with their misnamed living wage crusades that punish low-skilled job seekers. [BR][BR]And Ralph Nader, with his off-the-scale nutty brand of social activism, needs the Anti-Capitalist Convergence. Without the candid extremists, mainstream groups find themselves even more on the political fringes than they already are. And that's a difficult position from which to be taken seriously.[BR][BR]So in order to claim the political center, ordinary activist groups give their stamp of approval to unrest, disruption, and risk to life and limb. In doing so, environmental, labor, and anti-free-trade nonprofits are also tacitly endorsing this weekend's stated goal: We are striving toward the abolition of capitalism![BR][BR]Funny - Greenpeace takes in over $23 million each year in the U.S. alone - take a gander at ActivistCash.com for the proof. Ralph Nader's myriad activist groups are worth at least $19 million on paper. And globally, Friends of the Earth moves over $80 million a year. Strange balance sheets indeed for underwriters of modern socialism.[/SPAN]
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
The biggest problem that probably everyone agrees with regarding unions is the sad fact that they are needed in the first place.
This is the 21st century for chrissakes, why must american businesses still be of the frame of mind that employees are a commodity to be used and thrown away at will.
This is the 21st century for chrissakes, why must american businesses still be of the frame of mind that employees are a commodity to be used and thrown away at will.
[blockquote]
Whatever Happened to Paycheck Protection?
President Bush enjoys tremendous public support, and labor unions do not. What's more, during the primary campaign, one chief point of contention between candidates Bush and McCain was campaign finance reform. McCain ran on the promise to eliminate soft money and issue ads. Bush instead favored disclosure and eliminating labor unions' use of compulsory dues for political purposes—known popularly as paycheck protection. Bush defeated McCain.
But now, the President has signed McCain's polymorphous reform bill, with no paycheck protection. To understand how this could occur requires first a closer look at unions and politics.
Labor union membership is declining overall, but remains a relatively bigger deal in the public sector than in the private sector. What do we know about these unions? Not as much as we should. Some unions are required to file financial reports with the Department of Labor, but these are vague when it comes to union expenditures. We don't know how much unions make in dues as opposed to income from other sources, or how much of that is spent on collective bargaining, or on politics. Many unions representing public employees need not file even these reports. Clinton's Labor Department rescinded regulations that would have improved the situation somewhat by requiring unions to report expenses by functional category.
Paycheck protection proposals seek to limit unions' use of dues for political activities, by requiring annual approval from employees before dues could be collected for use for politics. Of course, such a reform only affects employees in closed shop states (when I last checked there were 29 such states). Paycheck protection follows in the spirit of the Beck decision, which recognized non-members rights to object to the use of dues for political purposes, but goes beyond Beck by protecting all employees—not just those who do not join the union. Since state laws regulating dues collection could be preempted by federal labor law, the best reform must be made at the national level.
Unions, especially those representing public sector employees, tend to favor regulation, government spending, and oppose privatization. They thus tend to support liberals over conservatives and Democrats over Republicans.
Unions can be big political players. They have been a significant source of soft money to the Democratic Party, and make contributions at the state and local level in jurisdictions that permit them. They have produced issue advertising. They administer PACs. They communicate and organize their members to assist with campaigns. Our new campaign finance laws affect their issue advertising and soft money programs, but do not touch their rank-and file mobilization efforts. And by and large, they are not friends of the Bush Administration. So, one might assume, the Administration would be pleased to fight for a reform that decreases their influence.
But the Bush team didn't ultimately demand paycheck protection reform. Perhaps they believed that, given the uncertain efficacy of the reform, the game might not be worth the candle. Paycheck protection reforms affect only dues assessments in closed shop states, and although union finances remain shrouded, it is likely that unions make significant sums outside of dues that could still be used for whatever purpose the union chooses. Paycheck protection laws also limit only those dues used for political purposes—which is understood not to apply to issue advertising, and may not touch union member-only communications and organization.
Bush shouldn't ignore this area, though. One alternative would be to revisit the transparency reforms pursued by his father's administration. The more the public and the rank and file know about a union's finances, the better able we shall be to evaluate unions' activities, and the suitability of candidates who rely on their money and manpower. In the era of Enron, who could argue for secrecy over disclosure? [/blockquote]
Whatever Happened to Paycheck Protection?
President Bush enjoys tremendous public support, and labor unions do not. What's more, during the primary campaign, one chief point of contention between candidates Bush and McCain was campaign finance reform. McCain ran on the promise to eliminate soft money and issue ads. Bush instead favored disclosure and eliminating labor unions' use of compulsory dues for political purposes—known popularly as paycheck protection. Bush defeated McCain.
But now, the President has signed McCain's polymorphous reform bill, with no paycheck protection. To understand how this could occur requires first a closer look at unions and politics.
Labor union membership is declining overall, but remains a relatively bigger deal in the public sector than in the private sector. What do we know about these unions? Not as much as we should. Some unions are required to file financial reports with the Department of Labor, but these are vague when it comes to union expenditures. We don't know how much unions make in dues as opposed to income from other sources, or how much of that is spent on collective bargaining, or on politics. Many unions representing public employees need not file even these reports. Clinton's Labor Department rescinded regulations that would have improved the situation somewhat by requiring unions to report expenses by functional category.
Paycheck protection proposals seek to limit unions' use of dues for political activities, by requiring annual approval from employees before dues could be collected for use for politics. Of course, such a reform only affects employees in closed shop states (when I last checked there were 29 such states). Paycheck protection follows in the spirit of the Beck decision, which recognized non-members rights to object to the use of dues for political purposes, but goes beyond Beck by protecting all employees—not just those who do not join the union. Since state laws regulating dues collection could be preempted by federal labor law, the best reform must be made at the national level.
Unions, especially those representing public sector employees, tend to favor regulation, government spending, and oppose privatization. They thus tend to support liberals over conservatives and Democrats over Republicans.
Unions can be big political players. They have been a significant source of soft money to the Democratic Party, and make contributions at the state and local level in jurisdictions that permit them. They have produced issue advertising. They administer PACs. They communicate and organize their members to assist with campaigns. Our new campaign finance laws affect their issue advertising and soft money programs, but do not touch their rank-and file mobilization efforts. And by and large, they are not friends of the Bush Administration. So, one might assume, the Administration would be pleased to fight for a reform that decreases their influence.
But the Bush team didn't ultimately demand paycheck protection reform. Perhaps they believed that, given the uncertain efficacy of the reform, the game might not be worth the candle. Paycheck protection reforms affect only dues assessments in closed shop states, and although union finances remain shrouded, it is likely that unions make significant sums outside of dues that could still be used for whatever purpose the union chooses. Paycheck protection laws also limit only those dues used for political purposes—which is understood not to apply to issue advertising, and may not touch union member-only communications and organization.
Bush shouldn't ignore this area, though. One alternative would be to revisit the transparency reforms pursued by his father's administration. The more the public and the rank and file know about a union's finances, the better able we shall be to evaluate unions' activities, and the suitability of candidates who rely on their money and manpower. In the era of Enron, who could argue for secrecy over disclosure? [/blockquote]
WingNA,
Yet another example from you from the pro-union side.
Unions were a great thing back in the early 1900's, but we are in a different enviornment today. The employee does not run the company, the management, and the board runs the company. If we let unions run our company's I am not sure anyone would be able to make a profit. In your world, it's ME FIRST!
----------------
On 9/30/2002 6:43:41 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
The biggest problem that probably everyone agrees with regarding unions is the sad fact that they are needed in the first place.
This is the 21st century for chrissakes, why must american businesses still be of the frame of mind that employees are a commodity to be used and thrown away at will.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yet another example from you from the pro-union side.
Unions were a great thing back in the early 1900's, but we are in a different enviornment today. The employee does not run the company, the management, and the board runs the company. If we let unions run our company's I am not sure anyone would be able to make a profit. In your world, it's ME FIRST!
----------------
On 9/30/2002 6:43:41 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
The biggest problem that probably everyone agrees with regarding unions is the sad fact that they are needed in the first place.
This is the 21st century for chrissakes, why must american businesses still be of the frame of mind that employees are a commodity to be used and thrown away at will.
----------------
[/blockquote]
- Status
Similar threads
