Carl Davidson – 9/6/13

This page was last updated on March 5, 2014.

Factory Workers in 1910; Kentuckians Against the War on Women; September 6, 2013.

On the Facebook page of Kentuckians Against the War on Women is a photo entitled “Factory Workers in 1910” showing a bunch of smiling children.  Text at the bottom of the photo says, “Take a good look at laissez-faire capitalism.”  The person who posted the photo commented, “What is meant by the phrase ‘Take our country back.’”

For the sake of this discussion, let’s ignore the kids (aka “Factory Workers in 1910”) in the photo appear to be pretty happy.  Given who’s using the photo, it’s interesting to note there appears to be no non-white children in the photo.

My maternal grandfather was an “unskilled” laborer at the J&L Aliquippa Works from the mid-1920s to the early-1950s.  Prior to that, Grandpa worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad in Beaver Falls.  Before that, he started working as a coalminer at 12 years of age (about 1888).  Coal mines hired kids to lead donkey-pulled coal carts because, unlike most adult males, their height meant they didn’t have to walk bent over all day in tunnels with low ceilings.  Grandpa dropped out of – or never attended – high school.

The reason I mentioned my grandfather’s work history is he opposed the formation of a union at J&L in 1937.  I don’t recall if my mother told me why Grandpa opposed the union.  Perhaps Grandpa and Grandma felt well-treated by J&L.  After all, J&L hired a 48-years-old “unskilled” laborer and paid him enough to buy a house in Aliquippa (on Main Street in Plan 12) within a block of what would be Mom’s grade school and within two-three blocks of the high school.  By the time Mom graduated from high school (a year early), Grandpa and Grandma had enough to send her to Grace Martin’s Secretarial School in Pittsburgh (GM).  My grandparents even had enough to send Mom to college (She wanted to become a teacher.), but she refused for two reasons.  First, this was during the Great Depression and Mom wanted her parents to hold onto as much of their savings as they could in case Grandpa lost his job.  Second, going to GM meant Mom could work full-time a lot sooner and could help her parents in case Grandpa lost his job.  Fortunately, Grandpa never did lose his job during the Great Depression.  My grandparents also managed to prepare adequately for retirement.  The following didn’t help his opinion of unions.  Grandpa (60 years old at the time) wasn’t an anti-union activist and didn’t lobby others to oppose the union, but when asked his opinion he gave it.  Grandpa’s position wasn’t popular with the union organizers and resulted in thinly-veiled threats against my grandmother and mother (16 years old at the time).  The gutless wonders didn’t make the threats directly to Grandpa; instead they relied on their wives to convey warnings to my grandmother.  Fearing for my mother’s well-being, Grandma asked Grandpa not to comment when asked about his position and he agreed.  To summarize, despite my grandfather being an “unskilled” laborer, my grandparents owned their own home on Main Street and put my mother through a top-notch secretarial school, all without a union.  This was a union organizer’s nightmare.

Commenting on the aforementioned photo, Mr. Davidson wrote, “Lest we forget...This is why the working class organizes itself, both for self-defense and to gain political power. If the right, with its ‘right to work’ laws manages to destroy even the few unions we have, this is what they have in mind for us and our children.”  Who with at least a grain of brainpower believes this?

Mr. Davidson apparently sees people as members of classes or victim groups, not as individuals.  Mr. Davidson once described his definition of “working class” thusly: “If someone else [signs your paycheck], you’re in the working class.”  I suspect most business owners - large or small - (who pay Socialist Security and Medicare taxes just as the rest of us) would be surprised to learn they aren’t “working families.”

Though the details vary among states, “right-to-work” (RTW) laws tend to do the following.  First, RTW laws repeal union-shop rules.  That is, RTW laws revoke BUMster (“BUMster” is the combination of Big Union management and gangster) power to make union membership or dues-paying a condition of continued employment.  Though often used interchangeably, “closed shops” and “union shops” are not exactly the same.  A closed shop is “an establishment in which the employer by agreement hires [and continues to employ] only union members in good standing.”  The Taft–Hartley Act of 1947 made closed shops illegal but allows union shops.  A union shop is “an establishment in which the employer by agreement is free to hire nonmembers as well as members of the union but retains nonmembers on the payroll only on condition of their becoming members of the union within a specified time.”  If you think the practical difference between a closed and a union shop appears to be a distinction without a difference, join the crowd.  Legally, though, it is a big difference.

Second, RTW laws tend to revoke BUMsters’ ability to force employers to be dues collectors for BUMsters.  That is, BUMsters can’t force employers to withhold union dues from employee paychecks.  In my opinion, this may be BUMsters’ – and the rest of the left’s - biggest objection to RTW laws.  You can see this in BUMster opposition to Pennsylvania House Bill 1507, a law to prevent government from forcing the deduction of union dues from the paychecks of public-sector employees.

When Mr. Davidson wrote of “political power,” it was not about power for “the working class.”  It’s about political power for BUMsters.  Sometime after the days of Samuel Gompers, the primary business of labor unions devolved into political advocacy/lobbying for leftist politicians and policies/programs.  Representing employees is now simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities.  (Where’s the IRS office of tax-exempt entities when you need it? <g>)  Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages.  I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.”  No one will mistake Mr. Trumka and other BUMsters for Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and AFL president for 38 years until his death.  AFL-CIO management spent over $29.6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.”  In additional to the cash, the AFL-CIO has access to more than 11.7 million members (as of 2010) for “volunteer” political campaign work.  If you need more proof, non-union employees can now join the AFL-CIO.  This is to address declining union membership, but more importantly, declining revenue to spend on lobbying and political activities.

In a previous “Lest we forget” comment on another topic, Mr. Davidson wrote, “Lest we forget...This is what a Tea-Party dominating both Houses, the GOP in the White House, and one vote shifted on the Supreme Court would put on the agenda, only don’t expect it to be limited to the CPUSA.... ‘Today in history: August 24, 1954 - The Communist Control Act signed into law by President Eisenhower, which outlawed the Communist Party and criminalized membership in, or support for the Party or ‘Communist-action’ organizations. It was passed unanimously by the Senate with all Democrats and Republicans voting for it. The Act made membership in the Communist Party a criminal act and stipulated that all Party members would be sanctioned with up to a $10,000 fine or imprisonment for five years or both. Additionally, according to the third section, the Communist Party would be deprived of ‘the rights, privileges, and immunities of a legal body.’ While some Federal District Courts have declared parts of the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the act’s constitutionality and the provisions of the act ‘outlawing’ the party have never been repealed. (image: cover of a 1947 anti-communist propaganda comic book)’”

BCR VP Bob Schmetzer wrote, “Thanks Carl for the education. I have never heard of Icenhour’s attack on the constitution before. I always thought that any party could run for office within the United States, They would win or loose based on the democratic principle of majority votes. Choices have always been an American virtue. The Constitution directs us that if and when the government doesn’t represent the people anymore,( not the corporation,) it is not only our right, but our DUTY to change that form of government.”

As usual, fact-checking is in order.  The bill was S.3706 of the 83rd Congress and “was [NOT] passed unanimously by the Senate with all Democrats and Republicans voting for it.”  According to govtrack.us, the Senate voted 79 “aye” (D-39, R-39, I-1), zero “nay,” one “present,” plus 16 senators who did not vote (total of 96 senators).  The House voted 266 “aye” (D-144, R-121, I-1), two “nay” (D-1, R-1), 164 “present” (D-69, R-95), plus three representatives who did not vote (total of 435 representatives).  Despite a small Republican majority (seven seats) in the House and one-half (48) of the Senate seats (Democrats held 47 seats plus there was one Independent), overall more Democrats (183) than Republicans (160) voted for S.3706.  Mr. Schmetzer, however, focused on President Eisenhower, not the Democrats who voted for the bill, Mr. Schmetzer’s ideological/political ancestors.  Though President Eisenhower should have vetoed the bill, it would have become law anyway without his signature.  You have to appreciate the chutzpah, though; the left promoted things like this bill and Jim Crow laws, yet they proclaim it will be Republicans who resurrect the policies.

In the final sentence of his comment, it appears Mr. Schmetzer confused the U.S. Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (“… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”).

You may recall lefties make themselves “arbiters” of speech by defining anything they don’t like to hear/read as “hate speech.”  Lefties also routinely shout down – and occasionally physically attack – speakers they don’t like and they considerate those actions to be free speech.  Ann Coulter (a conservative pundit) and Jim Gilchrist (founder of the Minuteman Project) are examples.  Another version is making such a stink in advance the speaker cancels.  Ann Coulter (University of Ottawa and Fordham), Ben Carson, MD (Johns Hopkins), and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (NAACP here and here) are examples.  In fairness, Bill Ayers (a 1960s/1970s leftist bomber and alleged friend of Mr. Davidson) has had some speeches cancelled, but then he is an unrepentant “co-founder of Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol that didn’t kill anyone.”  Members of Mr. Ayers’ crew accidentally killed themselves while building a bomb to set off at Fort Dix, NJ.  Mr. Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a member of the Weather Underground.

In a recent development, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) wants the feds to be “the arbiter” of who is a journalist and who is not.  That would effectively end the freedom of the press promised by the First Amendment.

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

© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.