End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by purojogo, Feb 16, 2011.

  1. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    That entire paragraph is pure, empty, rhetoric without a specific reason for why public employees can't have collective bargaining.


  2. fatbastard

    fatbastard Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Location:
    Lincoln (ish), Va
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    I think its an FDR quote - though the context is a bit different between when he said it and now.
  3. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    You know what's REALLY ironic? The right villifies the Gov't as something that is utterly untrustworthy and practically evil.

    The right villified public employees for collective bargaining...and tell them they should trust the gov't to be trustworthy with the benefits and such.

    That is completely hypocritical. The first statement should lead them to SUPPORT collective bargaining for public employees, giving them protection from the Gov't.
  4. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    It really doesn't matter who says it, it's an empty quote that gives us no valid reasons for why collective bargaining is an impossibility for public employees.


  5. fatbastard

    fatbastard Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Location:
    Lincoln (ish), Va
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Almost everything they do is radically hypocritical, you should stop being surprised by that ;)
  6. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Location:
    The 720, y'all
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Country:
    United States
    It's from FDR, as if it's supposed to cause us liberals to stop and genuflect, or as if a belief that was held because of circumstances in 1937 would be held if he were around today.
  7. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Location:
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    I was wondering the same thing.
  8. chad

    chad Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 1999
    Location:
    chicago
    Country:
    United States
    The beauty of the right is that they don't even care that it is hypocritical.
  9. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    Of course, the right throughout history has been pro-rich person/business owner/management.

    The French revolution was a liberal revolution, the American Revolution was a liberal revolution, the labor revolutions in Europe and America in the 1900s were liberal revolutions.

    I guess this is just the right wing supporting yet another "man" dictating life to the little person.
  10. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Karo Viertel
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Country:
    Germany
    The free market revolution in 1984 smashed our unions in NZ to give us a super efficient work force.

    In australia they took a more consultative approach where workers' unions were involved in the changes necessary.

    The result today is that real wages in NZ are far below Australia.

    In short lowering the costs of employment has failed to deliver the promised upside to a significant number of workers. The practical consequence being economic migration of skills out of the country to places where they pay more for the same work.

    I can find the study if anyone is interested.
  11. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    I understand that, but I'm speaking about the current situation, not a hypothetical. Currently, I do not enjoy collective bargaining rights, but that's OK for me because I have the ability to negotiate my own benefits and wages.
  12. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    1. You have that in quotes - who said it?
    2. That's akin to saying workers for a publicly held company can't undertake the process of collective bargaining because the employer is the whole shareholder class.
  13. marek

    marek Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2000
    Club:
    OSP Lechia Gdansk
    Country:
    Poland
    it was already noted earlier, FDR
  14. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Thank you. It's still wrong.
  15. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    Joined:
    May 2, 2001
    Location:
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I just heard on the radio a Wisconsin Republican accuse the absent Democrats of trying to shut down government, but "they can't do that because we're here to do the people's work" (paraphrase).

    Wish this guy was in the House of Representatives with that attitude. Because the Republicans in the US House don't seem that hell-bent on doing the people's work and seem to be rather casual about shutting down the Government if the "need" (partisan political need, that is) arises.
  16. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    The Nazis and Hitler were also against Labor, Collective Bargaining, and Unions. In fact, once they gained power they killed collective bargaining.
  17. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    Some more thoughts on this:

    Let start with some generalities, that have shown themselves to be true in Western Civilization since the Industrial Revolution.

    Generalization #1: The modern day "Left" or "Liberals" were born in the French Revolution, and continued an upsurge through the early 1900s both in Britain and in America. The reason is that the upper class generally ruled the lower class with an Iron Fist, and Woman were basically 2nd class citizens without even the right to vote. This is where the idea of people's rights, unions, collective bargaining, universal suffrage, etc. were born - and it was VERY much a liberal movement. It was also a socialist movement, and led to the rise of socialism in Europe and America. WWI also helped because it was mostly these people who were conscripted into European armies, and died in those wars - when the majority of Europe was very much against War.

    Generalization #2: The modern day "Right" or "Conservatives" was reflected in the French Bourgeoisie. They owned the means of economic production, the winners in Capitalism. They were the ones opposed to the socialists Liberals, because it was costing them money, power, and influence.

    #1 and #2 have been fighting each other for 150 years, and I high-lite both of those generalizations because I think Wisconsin is yet another battle ground. This whole issue is purely political. If the Gov. wins this battle, it deals a severe blow to the political Left in Wisconsin, because one of their basis of power is through Unions, and by turning the public against them as well as weakening a portion of it, it greatly weakens them and it's going to hurt the Democratic Party in that state and their ability to put forth financially viable candidates.

    This isn't Gov. Walker trying to correct a budget. It's political warfare - and it's gong to explode across America. This is just the beginning.
  18. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Country:
    United States
    Perhaps this belongs in the history forum, but few people of any current political stripe would characterize the American revolution as a "liberal" revolution. The Signers included smugglers, landed gentry, slaveowners, and the richest man in the colonies.
  19. CrewDust

    CrewDust Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 1999
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    It was a liberal revolution in 1776.
  20. Bob Morocco

    Bob Morocco Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Billings, MT
  21. roadkit

    roadkit It's Amazing What You Can See From Up Here

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States
    I think the Republicans should work to repeal the 8 hour workday/40 hour workweek.

    They'll only be happy when public employees are reduced to indentured servitude.
  22. russ

    russ Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 1999
    Location:
    Canton,NY
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    Because most Americans don't want to be workers-they want to be bosses.

    If they aren't,it's somebody else's fault.

    FYP.

    Much more sensible than chattel slavery-in that, you're responsible for their feeding,and they're so ungrateful!
  23. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Location:
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    The problem is that it wasn't quoted in its entirety. Here's the entire letter:

    FDR in no way opposed union membership for government employees. The right wingnuts are trying to say he did by cherry picking one paragraph from the letter while ignoring the context of the entire letter. Not surprising. It's what they do.
  24. fischerw

    fischerw Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Country:
    United States
    Your analysis is largely correct, however I think that it oversimplifies a bit to always put liberalism and unions in the same camp. In fact, "liberalism" in the classic sense, and as it existed for much of the nineteenth century, was always very skeptical of collectivist forms of organization. Classic liberalism prefers that people be individuals, pursuing individual self-interest. In Latin America particularly (my area of speciality), liberals worked against any kind of corporatist or collectivist organization because it stood in the way of liberalist politics and economics.

    Only in the 20th century, I think, does the right to collective bargaining become a "liberal" tenet-- and by this time, "liberal" doesn't really mean the same thing as in the 19th century. In my view, conservatives and Republicans in the US are die-hard "liberals" in the classic sense-- they prefer individualist paradigms in all circumstances and are staunch defenders of orthodox liberal economics.

    This is why teaching undergraduates about liberalism and conservatism in 19th century Mexico and Peru can be so confusing :p
  25. marek

    marek Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2000
    Club:
    OSP Lechia Gdansk
    Country:
    Poland
    how is the paragraph i posted not in keeping with the whole letter?

Share This Page