Beaver County Reds – 1/16/12

 


This page was last updated on January 19, 2012.


‘Right-to-Work’ and the Jim Crow Legacy That Affronts King’s Memory; John Nichols – NationOfChange; Progressive Democrats of America – PA 4th CD Chapter; January 16, 2012.

Randy Shannon posted this under the title “‘Right to Work’ Laws and the Legacy of Segregation.”


You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here.


As I wrote in another critique, lefties like to wrap themselves and their actions around Mr. King at every opportunity but go above and beyond on his holiday.  This time, Mr. Nichols wants us to believe “right-to-work” laws are about racism.  Wow, that’s original – not.  If you choose to read Mr. Nichol’s piece, be sure to fact-check just as you should with anything else you read, including my stuff.

The idea labor union management has a history of helping minorities is a quaint – albeit false – notion.

Referring to “right-to-work” laws, Mr. Nichols wrote, “These measures were designed to make it dramatically harder for workers to organize unions and for labor organizations to advocate for workers on the job site or for social change in their communities and states.”  The primary businesses of today’s union management are advocacy for leftist politicians and lobbying for leftist policies/programs.  Representing employees is simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and other political activities.  Mr. Nichols lets the cat out of the bag when he wrote right-to-work laws “make it dramatically harder … for labor organizations to advocate … for social change in their communities and states.”

Note Mr. Nichols never described right-to-work laws.  Before I go there, let’s look at what labor union management wants to continue and change.  In the continue category, union management wants to keep closed-shop laws in place.  These laws make labor union membership an employment requirement in union shops.  If Bob wants to work for Becky and Becky wants to employ Bob, why should a third party have the power to force union membership (or a fee nearly the same as member dues) on Bob?  In the change category, union management would like to reduce the likelihood of secret-ballot elections for union certification.

If you want to see what an evil right-to-work law says, take a look at Pennsylvania House Bill 50 (aka, the Freedom of Employment Act).  The bill begins, “Providing that employment shall not be conditional upon membership or nonmembership in, nor upon the payment or nonpayment of money to, a labor organization; and providing for bargaining, penalties and remedies.  The General Assembly finds that to require a person to be a member of, or not to be a member of, a private organization as a compulsory condition of work or employment is not in accord with fundamental principles of individual liberty and freedom of choice.  It is therefore declared to be the public policy of this Commonwealth that membership or nonmembership in a labor union should not be made a condition of the opportunity to work or to be or remain in the employment of any employer; that employees should have the right to form, join, continue membership in or assist labor organizations and should equally have the right to refrain from forming, joining, continuing membership in or assisting labor organizations; and that any agreement, express or implied, between employers and labor organizations, or any practice whatsoever, which directly or indirectly makes membership or nonmembership in a labor organization, or support or nonsupport of a labor organization, a condition of employment or continued employment is a violation of individual liberty and freedom and is against the public policy of this Commonwealth.”

Mr. Nichols complains “Republicans in traditionally pro-labor states have begun to attack the rights of [public-sector] workers and their unions,” but what did FDR (patron saint of lefties) and George Meany (first president of the AFL-CIO, 1955-1979) think of collective bargaining by public-sector unions?  FDR opposed public-sector labor unions.  In a 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward (President of the National Federation of Federal Employees), FDR wrote, “… meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.  All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.  It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”  Likewise, George Meany opposed collective bargaining for public-sector employees.

When politicians negotiate with labor union management, they negotiate with people who will return part of what they win to the politicians via taxpayer-funded campaign contributions.  It’s called a conflict of interest.  There’s a reason 93% of labor union management PAC contributions to federal candidates (over $62 million) went to Democrat candidates in 2010.

Mr. Nichols wrote, “Where did Kasich, Walker, Fitzgerald and other Republican leaders from Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and states along the country’s Northern tier get these ideas?  Not from their constituents.  Rather, they jetted off to conferences of right-wing governors (where former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal served up the policy gumbo) and legislators — including gatherings of the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council.  It was not in Wisconsin but rather at an ALEC session in Washington where Fitzgerald said he was ‘surprised (at) how much momentum there was around that discussion’ of enacting right-to-work laws.”  In a piece intended to curry favor with minorities, did you catch what Mr. Nichols failed to mention?  Mr. Nichols failed to note “right-wing governor … Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal” is a “man of color,” the son of Indian immigrants.  Oops.  Where’s a good editor or proofreader when you need him?  Then again, perhaps Mr. Jindal’s shade of brown and his ideology don’t qualify him as a “man of color” in the eyes of lefties.

In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>


© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.