Skip to comments.Are Unions Completely Overrun by Radicals?
Posted on 12/11/2012 9:18:18 PM PST by VitacoreVision
The behavior of large unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), indicate the power of the radicals and Marxists in the unions.
What they don’t want ya to know?
There are now more unionized government employees in the U.S. than in the private sector.
Union members rightly worry about corruption at the top, but they are also concerned that those who pay dues and negotiate contracts that result in decent pay also benefit those who do NOT pay dues in the “right to work” states. Is it fair to enjoy the same pay and contract rights as dues paying members or should non dues paying members have a lower salary rate?
Duh! Next stupid question.
The headline was a rhetorical question, right?
I think the union members will have the lower salary after they pay union TAX.
Being forced to join a union to get a job is SLAVERY
Yes. Many of them started off as commie fronts and haven’t changed much since
And more stuff they don’t want you to know (and passed by our elected representatives!):
Bill O'Reilly asked, "Is corruption seeping into America's big unions?"Yeah, it's a plot run by the US soldiers who carried out the Malmedy massacre, you moron.
Is it fair to force people to hand over their hard earned money to Democrat Party hacks. Because that is were the dues go. I wish once when a pinky ringed thug is interviewed on the news, the reporter asks which crime family is his union affiliated with. I know, it will never happen. Another fact of union life is the bags of money union leaders get from contractors to allow the contractors to use non-union labor on jobs. For a certain price, you can use sometimes more than 50% non-union labor. I bet a lot of people are unaware of that fact of union life.
Yes. It’s a rhetorical question. :-)
Corruption is what America’s big unions do best. Tommy Lucchese should be in the AFL-CIO hall of fame.
YouTube title: Andy Stern: Justice for All
Andrew Stern, from the SEIU YouTube page dated April 10, 2008.
Listen to this guy as he lays out the Obama administrations agenda for a union governed America, a union governed world, with free healthcare for all. This is before Obama was elected. This shows you that the unions are running the country.
3:30 We affirm SEIUs commitment to changing this country as well as the democratic and free debate.
4:06 If we adopt the Justice for All program, by the end of four years, we will have won healthcare for every man, every woman and every child in the United States and Puerto Rico.
If we adopt the Justice for All program, We will rebalance the power between big corporations and people that work by adopting the Employee Free Choice Act.
If we adopt the Justice for All program, we will finally have a pathway to citizenship for every immigrant in this country.
5:08 Ten percent of our members, nearly two hundred thousand people will be trained as leaders of our union to be the engine of change.
5:48 The gap between the rich and the rest of us is growing far too wide. Our candidate Barack Obama has seized on the opportunity of change.
6:45 Because if were going to win healthcare for every man, woman and child, and the employee free choice act in the first 100 days after we elect a new president, then were going to have to take this SEIU effort to a new level.
7:06 Thats why we are going to put ten million dollars in a bank account, to have accountability to every single politician who chooses to defy us on the pledges they made when they were running for office.
8:27 Its your talent, your skill, your passion, your dedication to help us elect Barack Obama and then win the changes we need for our country.
9:12 Many of you came here, not just to take care of our members, but to be a part a movement to change our country. We are on the verge of building that movement for justice for all, when we are on the verge of changing our country, we all come together and unite, and fight.
And if not us, if not us, then who?
And if not now, at this incredible moment of opportunity, an incredible moment of hope, then when?
Usually the leaders and president are pinko’s some full fledge marx’s in this day and age..or just plain gangsters like Hoffa....
Unions are nothing but flat out socialism.
Everyone gets the same wage and incentives are forbidden creating a situation where all production is quickly reduced to the level of the slowest person in the crew.
At least in construction we had the ability to hire and fire in order to keep up some level of production, most unionized industries don't have that ability.
“Non dues paying members” are not members, are they? They should be able to get the pay they, as individuals, negotiate and deserve.
In my opinion, it just makes unions pretty obsolete.
“’I bet a lot of people are unaware of that fact of union life.”
I spent 8 years on the carpenters joint adjustment board and any contractor caught trying it got fined enough to put themn out of business in most cases!!!!
As for me unions lost their respect and much of their necessity in a free economy after WWII. They were bad enough in the 1930s when as a young boy I saw the thuggery going on for my mother who was trying to feed and cloth two young boys by a piecework job. Even Roosevelt was against unions for federal employees. I would have no public unions of any kind that are not under actual public control/discretion. My wife and I were talking about unions today relative to the Michigan situation. I came to a thought that private industry unions of workers might be appropriate and from my experience sometimes useful. I could buy the arrangement that employees of private companies have a right to collectively be organized for their betterment. Any employee not wanting to share the burden of union membership would not be benefited by any union obtained gains. I realize this sets up a complex working system and environment but I believe it could make for a more balanced societal participation and objectives compared to where situations stand today.
The degenerate communist union bosses are pissed that their membership has been freed from compulsory witholding of union dues , thats what this is about and nonthing else.
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.
As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.
We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.
No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.
If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.
Theres nothing patently illegal about the next GOP POTU issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision
Its stupid to allow the Communists to use the same mechanism (witholding) the Federal apparatus uses to fund itself.
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437
UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399. Argued March 29, 1965. Decided June 7, 1965.
Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.
(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.
(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.
(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, shorthand expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 ,which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.
(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.
334 F.2d 488, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.
Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a unions access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the unions officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]
Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremens and Warehousemens Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504. It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .
Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]
Mr. Arens. Now, the affidavit says, does it not, sir, the affidavit that you signed, I am not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, is that correct, is that the affidavit you signed?
Mr. Nelson. That is what it says.
Mr. Arens. As of the time you signed the last Taft-Hartley affidavit in 1958, were you a person who had ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Nelson. You have my answer.
Mr. Scherer. All right. We havent the answer. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to direct the witness to answer that question.
Mr. Willis. You are directed to answer the question. You are not answering it.
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I endeavored to answer the question honestly and fully that I have signed affidavits
Mr. Willis. We are not talking about affidavits at all. This is something brand new.
Mr. Nelson. - under the Taft-Hartley since 1949 which says that I am not a member of the Communist Party. And I will not go beyond the period which is covered by the affidavit. I will not go beyond that period because I do not believe it to be relevant or pertinent to the stated purpose of this particular committee.
Mr. Willis. All right. In other words, you signed or have signed non-Communist affidavits once a year, is that correct?
Mr. Nelson. At least once a year.
Mr. Willis. At least once a year. And that affidavit provides that on the day, on the respective days that you have signed those affidavits you swore that on those days, let us say maybe twelve times, that the only thing you have sworn to in those affidavits if you signed twelve of them, that on those twelve days that you signed them that you were not then a member of the Communist Party. That is all those affidavits provide for, isnt that correct?
Mr. Nelson. Well, I am not so naive as to believe that the late Senator Taft and his associates who drew up the Taft-Hartley law were so foolish as to put in the Taft-Hartley law an amendment that covered the moment that I placed my pen on the paper. The affidavit means exactly what it says, that for the past 10 years and any given moment of those 10 years that you can name or anybody else can name, I was not a Communist, or a member of the Communist Party.
Mr., Willis. Now, let me ask you, forgetting the affidavits, have you been a member of the Communist Party at any time for 1 minute, or 3 hours, or 3 months during that period of time?
Mr. Nelson. I have not.
Mr. Willis. All right. Now, have you ever been a member of the Communist Party at any time in your lifetime?
Mr. Nelson. Prior to 1949, which was the first affidavit I signed, I decline to answer on the basis that it is remote and irrelevant and is n
Unions make the KKK look like a boys choir.
Communists is more like it.
Headline: Are Unions Completely Overrun by Radicals?
In the cases I’ve seen (1) union president is an out-of-the-closed communist — and dam proud of it
union officers were people with no life of their own who got their jollies exercising power over others.
Yep, my comment as well -
“radicals” is the wrong word. COMMUNISTS is the correct word.
Haven’t you ever gone to a union meeting? Everyone speaks the communist party line!
Unions are nothing but flat out socialism.
Many don't know.
There are now more unionized government employees in the U.S. than in the private sector.
What is more insidious here, is your paying the government union bosses wages and paying 100 percent of all unionized government employee wages.