Labor Unions Now Reaching Out to Republicans
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:16:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Labor Unions Now Reaching Out to Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Labor Unions Now Reaching Out to Republicans  (Read 4099 times)
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2011, 11:46:17 PM »

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

In New Jersey Governor Tom Kean signed legislation artificially boosting the salaries of NJEA members. Governor Don Difrancesco signed legislation artificially boosting the pensions of state unions by 9%.

It's quite amusing how these people believe that legislation can increase their compensation but not decrease it. And then they go around claiming that compensation should be collectively bargained and not legislated.

Public sector unions will naturally side with whatever party that lets then feed at the trough.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2011, 11:53:26 PM »

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

In New Jersey Governor Tom Kean signed legislation artificially boosting the salaries of NJEA members. Governor Don Difrancesco signed legislation artificially boosting the pensions of state unions by 9%.

It's quite amusing how these people believe that legislation can increase their compensation but not decrease it. And then they go around claiming that compensation should be collectively bargained and not legislated.

Public sector unions will naturally side with whatever party that lets then feed at the trough.

And Ohio disproved your delusion that most people have nothing but a burning extreme hatred for all public sector unions and want to slaughter all their members.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2011, 11:59:49 PM »

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.
Logged
Stardust
Rookie
**
Posts: 205
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2011, 12:03:08 AM »

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

I wasn't referring to their choice of partisan affiliation, though as you point out, unionized voters are extremely right-wing for being what they are. My statement that "(m)ost of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing" is in reference to their extracurricular activities, like their support for the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Free Trade Union Committee, the latter of which was nothing more than a CIA front into the labor movement in post-war Europe.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2011, 12:03:53 AM »

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

In New Jersey Governor Tom Kean signed legislation artificially boosting the salaries of NJEA members. Governor Don Difrancesco signed legislation artificially boosting the pensions of state unions by 9%.

It's quite amusing how these people believe that legislation can increase their compensation but not decrease it. And then they go around claiming that compensation should be collectively bargained and not legislated.

Public sector unions will naturally side with whatever party that lets then feed at the trough.

Okay, that's hypocritical and a little slimy, but how do things like that come even remotely close to being 'some of the worst pieces of legislation in US history'?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2011, 12:11:49 AM »

Probably because they contribute to the overall pension problem that cities and states are facing. Though there is worse legislation for sure. Fugitive slave law anyone? Indian Removal Act?

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

In New Jersey Governor Tom Kean signed legislation artificially boosting the salaries of NJEA members. Governor Don Difrancesco signed legislation artificially boosting the pensions of state unions by 9%.

It's quite amusing how these people believe that legislation can increase their compensation but not decrease it. And then they go around claiming that compensation should be collectively bargained and not legislated.

Public sector unions will naturally side with whatever party that lets then feed at the trough.

And Ohio disproved your delusion that most people have nothing but a burning extreme hatred for all public sector unions and want to slaughter all their members.

The truth as to the objective lies somewhere between restoring solvency and execution squads. Probably somewhere closer to solvency.

Though I should give you credit, you shown just like Trunca with the inflamatory rhetoric.


Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2011, 12:21:53 AM »

Okay, that's hypocritical and a little slimy, but how do things like that come even remotely close to being 'some of the worst pieces of legislation in US history'?

Most legislation at least pretends to have some good intention. The 2001 legislation in particular was specifically and solely designed to prevent the NJEA from dictating the Democrats back into power. In addition the state of New Jersey openly and flagrantly violated SEC regulations.

It didn't even work.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2011, 12:23:20 AM »


And Ohio disproved your delusion that most people have nothing but a burning extreme hatred for all public sector unions and want to slaughter all their members.

Certainly union busting seems to be more of an art rather than a science. The Virginia Democratic party successfully union busted in 1993 without dire ramifications.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2011, 12:28:20 AM »

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

I wasn't referring to their choice of partisan affiliation, though as you point out, unionized voters are extremely right-wing for being what they are. My statement that "(m)ost of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing" is in reference to their extracurricular activities, like their support for the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Free Trade Union Committee, the latter of which was nothing more than a CIA front into the labor movement in post-war Europe.

Well, I am just not clear on what you are interjecting into this thread. Presumably that US Unions played ball with the US government during the Cold War?

Of course, people have a varying opinion on what constitutes right and left wing. You are a new poster so I can't really judge what your viewpoint is.  All that aside, unions members are a solid constituency for the Democratic party.  General domestic short hand places them to the left of the opposition. I suspect you think that distance isnt very far.  
Logged
Stardust
Rookie
**
Posts: 205
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2011, 12:33:44 AM »

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

I wasn't referring to their choice of partisan affiliation, though as you point out, unionized voters are extremely right-wing for being what they are. My statement that "(m)ost of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing" is in reference to their extracurricular activities, like their support for the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Free Trade Union Committee, the latter of which was nothing more than a CIA front into the labor movement in post-war Europe.

Well, I am just not clear on what you are interjecting into this thread. Presumably that US Unions played ball with the US government during the Cold War?

Among their other stances on issues of the day, the AFL-CIO took an absolutely self-defeating, even self-destructive attitude during the Cold War, because they prioritized (and still do) co-operating with the government within the framework of a vaguely-defined social democracy than in seriously advocating the needs of the class which is, ostensibly, their constituency. I am 'interjecting' nothing more than the fact that the AFL-CIO is doing nothing new by appealing to the Republicans. It is their natural instinct.

I can't post links as yet, but I'd suggest Googling a little pamphlet called Why Communist China Should Not Be Admitted To The United Nations. Sound like boilerplate Bircher agitprop?

It was produced by the AFL-CIO and distributed by FTUC.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I rather suspect there is no distance whatsoever.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2011, 01:01:40 AM »

I don't really think this is the right thread for the discussion of Cold War era union maneuvers.  Although it is an interesting topic and I think it would be a welcome new thread somewhere.  We have many members who would be able to provide a much better discourse and insight into the topic than I ever could.  A moderator, Al, is particularly knowledgeable about the history and dynamics of unions. At any rate, I generally agree with labor unions moving away from some of the "Red" elements of the time.

Now about unions advocating for their class, I dont think I agree with that in theory or in practice.  The limited, primary goal should be to maximize the benefit for their dues paying members. Rational self interest dictates that it may be more beneficial to play the fence or change sides now and again.  This produces some leverage. 

Unions as a whole are really too crippled to effect any type of change across a class.
Logged
Stardust
Rookie
**
Posts: 205
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2011, 01:07:39 AM »

At any rate, I generally agree with labor unions moving away from some of the "Red" elements of the time.

The problem isn't so much that they moved "away from the 'Red'" as it is that they moved out of the 'Red' and into the 'Blue'. When the Teamsters are one of the biggest contributors to Reagan's second campaign, you have a problem on your hands.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reasons for it are understandable enough. The go-to men of the unions were folks like 'Scoop' Jackson, who had no problem with institutionalizing the unions as an attache of the State as long as the unions were beholden to the government's domestic agenda. This had the inevitably effect of producing in the unions a Marxian 'labour aristocracy' as naturally as light follows on from day.

If you can't tell by now, I'm not remotely sympathetic to the AFL-CIO. Always have been, and always will be, a Wobbly man.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2011, 01:20:52 AM »

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

In New Jersey Governor Tom Kean signed legislation artificially boosting the salaries of NJEA members. Governor Don Difrancesco signed legislation artificially boosting the pensions of state unions by 9%.

It's quite amusing how these people believe that legislation can increase their compensation but not decrease it. And then they go around claiming that compensation should be collectively bargained and not legislated.

Public sector unions will naturally side with whatever party that lets then feed at the trough.

What does "artificial" mean? Does the natural order not consist of payment for teachers?
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2011, 01:32:03 AM »

I have been known to say a kind word toward Jim Larkin and Mike Quill.  I am not a Union member myself but both of my parents are and my late Grandmother led a few bitter strikes in her day. However, I have a reflexive distaste for the international(e) movements.  The Bolshies and Trots just did not fit in with my concept of what America should be about.
Logged
Stardust
Rookie
**
Posts: 205
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2011, 01:34:33 AM »

I have been known to say a kind word toward Jim Larkin and Mike Quill.  I am not a Union member myself but both of my parents are and my late Grandmother led a few bitter strikes in her day. However, I have a reflexive distaste for the international(e) movements.  The Bolshies and Trots just did not fit in with my concept of what America should be about.

Funny, that. Few people opposed to international socialism on nationalist grounds have anything but the kindest words for international finance capital and globalization.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2011, 01:58:52 AM »

I have been known to say a kind word toward Jim Larkin and Mike Quill.  I am not a Union member myself but both of my parents are and my late Grandmother led a few bitter strikes in her day. However, I have a reflexive distaste for the international(e) movements.  The Bolshies and Trots just did not fit in with my concept of what America should be about.

Funny, that. Few people opposed to international socialism on nationalist grounds have anything but the kindest words for international finance capital and globalization.

I'm personally opposed to socialism in general.  However, I think it necessary to have labor be a viable bulwark against the inherent abuses of national and international corporate power. The yawning gap between the super rich and middle class/working class has been allowed to extend too far. 
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2011, 02:38:18 AM »

Okay, that's hypocritical and a little slimy, but how do things like that come even remotely close to being 'some of the worst pieces of legislation in US history'?

Most legislation at least pretends to have some good intention. The 2001 legislation in particular was specifically and solely designed to prevent the NJEA from dictating the Democrats back into power. In addition the state of New Jersey openly and flagrantly violated SEC regulations.

It didn't even work.

Did anybody die because of it? Did anybody lose constitutional rights because of it? Did anybody get maimed by a grain thresher of some description because of it?

No?

Then it's still better than Taft-Hartley.


And Ohio disproved your delusion that most people have nothing but a burning extreme hatred for all public sector unions and want to slaughter all their members.

Certainly union busting seems to be more of an art rather than a science. The Virginia Democratic party successfully union busted in 1993 without dire ramifications.

Is this even a means for you, or is preventing institutions other than corporations from playing a role in the economy or workers' lives actually an end at this point?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2011, 10:15:10 AM »

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

In New Jersey Governor Tom Kean signed legislation artificially boosting the salaries of NJEA members. Governor Don Difrancesco signed legislation artificially boosting the pensions of state unions by 9%.

It's quite amusing how these people believe that legislation can increase their compensation but not decrease it. And then they go around claiming that compensation should be collectively bargained and not legislated.

Public sector unions will naturally side with whatever party that lets then feed at the trough.

What does "artificial" mean? Does the natural order not consist of payment for teachers?

These people ramble about the merits of payment via collective bargaining. Excess payment by other means is outside that process, and thus, artificial.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2011, 10:19:03 AM »

Is this even a means for you, or is preventing institutions other than corporations from playing a role in the economy or workers' lives actually an end at this point?

This is the NJEA"s own internal memo on what they describe as a 'challenging' year (pre 2010) and still got everything they wanted on dozens of pieces of legislation.

http://www.aimitsolutions.com/njea/WestNewYorkEA/absolutenm/articlefiles/40-NJEA%E2%80%99s%20Legistative%20Successes.pdf


Nobody is on even footing with them. The end is to prevent New Jersey's continued outrageous growth in property tax from shellacking the middle class.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2011, 11:36:05 AM »


Now about unions advocating for their class, I dont think I agree with that in theory or in practice.  The limited, primary goal should be to maximize the benefit for their dues paying members. Rational self interest dictates that it may be more beneficial to play the fence or change sides now and again.  This produces some leverage. 

the very basic problem with this is, if a union only is able to organize a certain area within an industry, eventually the competitive pressures will force wages down to or almost to the level of the nonunion sector.  union leaders call the attempt to combat this, taking wages "out of competition"
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2011, 04:41:33 PM »

Is this even a means for you, or is preventing institutions other than corporations from playing a role in the economy or workers' lives actually an end at this point?

This is the NJEA"s own internal memo on what they describe as a 'challenging' year (pre 2010) and still got everything they wanted on dozens of pieces of legislation.

http://www.aimitsolutions.com/njea/WestNewYorkEA/absolutenm/articlefiles/40-NJEA%E2%80%99s%20Legistative%20Successes.pdf


Nobody is on even footing with them. The end is to prevent New Jersey's continued outrageous growth in property tax from shellacking the middle class.

Has it ever occurred to you that the people who educate our children might in fact deserve to be to some extent an elite?
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2011, 05:00:13 PM »
« Edited: November 20, 2011, 05:02:27 PM by ingemann »

Has it ever occurred to you that the people who educate our children might in fact deserve to be to some extent an elite?

That's a really good point, we all talk about the old days, when teachers was respected. That people forget was that the teacher was usual the best educated man in the community and often one of the most well paid too. A lot of the loss of respect for teachers have been the result of the move of teachers from well paid elite to low wage (at least for people with their education) public servant, the falling prestige also result in teachers have stopped being recruited among our best and brightest and have moved to recruit from the average students instead. If people want the old values and better education back in the schools, they need to start paying teachers a wage, which give it something of its old prestige back.

...and I say we because this isn't a unique American problem, it's something which exist in the entire West
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2011, 11:09:35 AM »

Has it ever occurred to you that the people who educate our children might in fact deserve to be to some extent an elite?

That's a really good point, we all talk about the old days, when teachers was respected. That people forget was that the teacher was usual the best educated man in the community and often one of the most well paid too. A lot of the loss of respect for teachers have been the result of the move of teachers from well paid elite to low wage (at least for people with their education) public servant, the falling prestige also result in teachers have stopped being recruited among our best and brightest and have moved to recruit from the average students instead. If people want the old values and better education back in the schools, they need to start paying teachers a wage, which give it something of its old prestige back.

...and I say we because this isn't a unique American problem, it's something which exist in the entire West

Lol, what? Where do people come up with this tripe?

Teacher productivity has plummetted into the gutter compared to the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

For public schools, the number of pupils per teacher—that is, the pupil/teacher ratio—declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 17.9 in 1985. After 1985, the public school pupil/teacher ratio continued to decline, reaching 17.2 in 1989. After a period of relative stability during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, the ratio declined from 17.3 in 1995 to 16.0 in 2000. Decreases have continued since then, and the public school pupil/teacher ratio was 15.3 in 2008.


And on top of that, their salaries are much higher than they used to be in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_082.asp
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2011, 11:15:14 AM »

Teacher productivity? I'm lost for words.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2011, 12:16:50 PM »


The standard is quite obvious. The productivity of a teacher can reasonably be measured by the number of students one teachers. For some reason that number keeps declining.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.