Skip to comments.Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich Agree: It's Okay for the Feds to Force Workers to Pay Tribute
Posted on 08/26/2011 1:54:26 PM PDT by Nachum
As reported in the Boston Globe and as seen in the New Hampshire debate video, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich believe it is perfectly okay for the federal government to mandate that every private sector worker in the United States pay forced-dues to labor unions as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Attention Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich: Right To Work is not a states rights issue, it is a freedom issue. The Federal government should not mandate compulsory unionism.
It appears that Forced Unionism is a Big Government idea that Newt & Mitt embrace. In fact, it was the brain child of our Biggest Big Government president, before Obama. Franklin Roosevelts 1935 Wagoner Act used, for the first time, federal powers to force every working man and woman to pay a third party, Big Labor bosses, in order to get or keep a job. It was wrong then, and it is outrageous now. Why would Gingrich and Romney embrace it?
In 1947, the American public had become so exasperated with Big Labor abuses of power that Congress made a half-hearted effort to fix the problem and passed the Taft-Hartley Act over President Harry Trumans veto. (Trumans presidential campaign had been heavily financed by forced-union dues.)
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich Agree: There’s no point in either of them trying to win over the conservative base so it makes more sense for both of them to try to win over middle of the road republicans, independents, and disaffected democrats.
Perry is just filling the vacuum that will disappear when Sarah declares.
Newt already knew he was out of the running.
Now it seems that Mitt has just thrown in the towel.
As smart as Newt is, he has to have taken leave of his senses to support something like that!
He has just proved he is a poor campaigner if that is true!
Let’s fix that... Like so many things, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich agree wholeheartedly with Obama... They are cut from the same big government cloth, only difference is that Obama has no clue how to get anything done, whereas Mitt and Newt are more than eager to give away the store and give us mother government.
It is an individual freedom issue, indeed!
Sorry boys. It will be a cold day in hell before I “join” a union.
“Franklin Roosevelts 1935 Wagoner Act used, for the first time, federal powers to force every working man and woman to pay a third party, Big Labor bosses, in order to get or keep a job. It was wrong then, and it is outrageous now.”
Actually, that was the Wagner Act, not the Wagoner Act, and it was Wagner’s, obviously, not FDR’s. I know, I know, president’s have to sign something for it to become law. But I think it’s important to clarify that Congress is primarily responsible for law, not the executive. Though in this case FDR had a chokehold on the legislature, it may not be to our liking to blame conservative presidents for their liberal Congresses.
That being said, I’m not overly familiar with the Wagner Act itself, but I do know that the “right” to collective bargaining wasn’t originally what we’ve taken it now to mean. All it really meant was that employers couldn’t stop employees from joining unions if they wanted to, which by the way was already the case before the law passed. No one was sneaking into potential union member’s bedrooms in the middle of the night to beat people with sticks until they agreed to stay company men anymore. Perhaps it meant businesses couldn’t make it a condition of employment to sign a pledge not to join a union anymore. Again, I don’t know all that much about it.
What I do know is that the idea wasn’t what Big Labor and lefties everywhere wanted it to be, i.e. so long as an entity—often entirely controlled from the outside—got a bare majority to sign a piece of paper the bosses had to deal with them and only them. Employers still should have been free to contract with minority unions, including company unions, and individuals. Heck, they could, and still can in my opinion, always tell everyone to go to hell and get off their property and start over with new employees. But the unions’ freedom to blockade, beseige, trespass, and inflict all manner of violence limits this.
It was left to the courts to interpret the right to bargain collectively with a right to a closed shop, and woe befell our nation.
That said, as a Constitutional conservataive, I don't see where in the Constitution that the Congress would be given the right to pass such a law. Labor relations within a state are none of the Federal government's business. In his answer in the clip, Newt was exactly right.
Same here, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for anyone who supports them.
IMHO the headline is misleading — which surprises me a little from Big Government — they think it is a states right issue, which it is under our constitution...... what is wrong is what Obama is doing in trying to use the Federal Government to decide for all states.
Thanks, BruceS, for your observation.
Why would Gingrich and Romney embrace it?
They’re both liberal losers?
That said, as a Constitutional conservataive, I don't see where in the Constitution that the Congress would be given the right to pass such a law. Labor relations within a state are none of the Federal government's business. In his answer in the clip, Newt was exactly right."
Same here ,unless there was a part of the video missing.
For the record, and perhaps I should have been more explicit about it, I was talking mostly specifically about federal collective bargaining rights, which preceded the Wagner Act, which I said I’m not overly unfamiliar with.
Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up on a Wagner Act thread, but the right to collective bargaining comes from, I believe, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. It did not mean then what it means now, and its meaning certainly was expanded by the courts, in accordance with how FDR hinted, and what the AFofL devoutly desired, it should mean.
“Union shops, and closed shops are NOT the same thing.”
Of course not, which you’d realize I understand if you read my post. A (minimally) closed shop is one with mandatory union representation (though not necessarily membership) upon a union achieving majority vote. “Vote” in this instance is not to be confused with what people usually do under that name.
“The Courts did not establish these rules. There were minor clarifications but for the most part labor rules have been established by the NLRB and by Wagner and Taft Hartley.”
All those were important, but I believe you’ll find the watershed moment was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), and that its meaning was unreasonably expanded by courts.
According to the article “The fact is The National Right To Work Act that is pending in the U.S. Congress does not add a single word to federal law; it simply repeals two sections-two sections that federally authorizes forced-unionism across America.”
However in the video the question is “would you support a federal right to work law?”. Which is a quite different thing - the obvious interpretation of the phrase “federal right to work law” would be a law, at the federal level, banning closed shops etc. in all states. Which would probably be a positive thing, pragmatically, but may or may not be constitutional.
“Of course not, which youd realize I understand if you read my post. A (minimally) closed shop is one with mandatory union representation (though not necessarily membership) upon a union achieving majority vote. ‘Vote’ in this instance is not to be confused with what people usually do under that name.”
To elaborate, a closed shop is one in which a majority union bargains for everyone, in which neither individuals nor minority unions can negotiate for themselves (unless the individuals are special employees, independent contractors and the like), and in which agreements between the employer and the majority union are binding on all employees.
What I mean is, the National Right to Work Act, despite the name, is not a right to work act in the usual sense of the term, and their answers suggest they did not have that particular proposal in mind when they answered the question.
If they DO oppose the repeal of federal laws that force people to join and pay tribute to unions, then that is indeed cause for concern, but from what I can see neither of them do anything of the sort.
According to the article The fact is The National Right To Work Act that is pending in the U.S. Congress does not add a “single word to federal law; it simply repeals two sections-two sections that federally authorizes forced-unionism across America.
However in the video the question is would you support a federal right to work law?. Which is a quite different thing - the obvious interpretation of the phrase federal right to work law would be a law, at the federal level, banning closed shops etc. in all states. Which would probably be a positive thing, pragmatically, but may or may not be constitutional.”
Let’s put it this way,The real difference is productive and non productive or profitable or a annual loss,The handwriting is on the wall for the unions,OVER!
There's clearly a war on 'right-to-work' states.
CA is ruled by Big Labor. It can wage a $100 million state-wide campaign even against an off year election. We saw it in 2005 where Arnold tried to bring some reforms through ballot initiatives and was outspent 3-1.