Posted on 06/26/2011 9:04:07 AM PDT by SmithL
The battle has resumed in Wisconsin. The state Supreme Court has allowed Gov. Scott Walker to strip bargaining rights from state workers.
Meanwhile, legislators in New Hampshire and officials in Missouri are attacking private unions, seeking to make the states so-called "open shop," where workers can get all the benefits of being union members without paying union dues. Needless to say this ploy undermines the capacity of unions to do much of anything. Other Republican governors and legislatures are following suit.
Republicans in Congress are taking aim at the National Labor Relations Board, which is proposing relatively minor rules changes allowing workers to vote on whether to unionize soon after a union has been proposed, rather than allowing employers to delay the vote for years. Many employers have used the delaying tactics to retaliate against workers who try to organize, and intimidate others into rejecting a union.
This war on workers' rights is an assault on the middle class, and it is undermining the American economy.
The American economy can't get out of neutral until American workers have more money in their pockets to buy what they produce. And unions are the best way to give them the bargaining power to get better pay.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and the author of "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future."
How about the rights of workers in South Carolina to work for Boeing without being in the union?
In the private sector there are market restraints on what a union can demand. If UPS (union) workers demand too much in compensation as to render their company non-competitive with FedEx (non-union), they will lose business. This puts a real world restraint on what these unions demand in terms of compensation and benefits. Corporations can go out of business, which obviously would hurt the union employees. Government has no competition, and is in effect a monopoly in terms of the services that it supplies. Therefore, there is no similar control placed upon public sector union demands. If government workers go on strike, where else can consumers go to get their drivers licenses? There is no market mechanism to keep the price of labor in line.
With the lack of market forces, taxpayers must rely exclusively upon management to say no to costly demands. Management in this case of the current issue in Wisconsin is the Governor, but the scenario is no different throughout other levels of government. County Executives, Mayors, & Town Councils all act as management in the government “corporation”. The government official must work even harder to represent the taxpayer in negotiations with public employee unions under these circumstances. There is a political party, however, that is beholden to the very government unions they are supposed to be negotiating with.
The Democratic Party receives an overwhelming amount of money in political donations from public sector unions, in fact their top 4 donors are various government unions (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php).
Many candidates go to union sponsored events, and pledge their support. This would not be a problem if not for the fact that the elected official in question will be sitting across the negotiating table from the very union that supported them in their campaign. If a candidate for office received a donation from a corporation, then after elected gave a no bid contract to that corporation it would be called corruption. How is this situation any different?
Considering most government entities (other than federal) must balance their budgets every year, you would think that politicians would be restricted from offering paybacks to the unions. They can’t give what they don’t have. Right? The problem with this argument is that the official has the ability to promise, and get passed into law, retirement and health benefits that will be paid for in the future. This takes away any current budgetary restraint that may exist, and puts us in the situation we find ourselves today in Wisconsin and all across the nation.
Mr. Walker’s proposal specifically eliminates collective bargaining for pension and healthcare benefits. This addresses the problem of politicians overpromising future benefits for unions that helped elect them. Any progress made in Wisconsin or other states, however, may be short lived if the screamers get to rule the debate. It would not be surprising if unions spend even more than the current record amounts in the next election in order to drown out rational discussion.
continued at http://freemarketsfreepeople.net/
Robert Reich = sawed off commie douchebag.
Reich was the first Democratic candidate for a major political office to support same-sex marriage. He also pledged support for abortion rights and strongly condemned capital punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
Well-educated but typical liberal.
ROTF!
EVERYBODY is out to get the poor widdo starving unionized government workers.
EVEN the State Court!
After the mess you hacks left at the state capitol with all your childish shenanigans, you're luck you aren't being hung for high crimes!
Thank you God for Scott Walker!
Send us some more, we NEED them!
Certainly you mean the war coming from our so called government? The one that is destroying jobs? That one?
All the Reasoning Ability of a bag of gophers.
In the private sector there are market restraints on what a union can demand. If UPS (union) workers demand too much in compensation as to render their company non-competitive with FedEx (non-union), they will lose business. This puts a real world restraint on what these unions demand in terms of compensation and benefits. Corporations can go out of business, which obviously would hurt the union employees. Government has no competition, and is in effect a monopoly in terms of the services that it supplies. Therefore, there is no similar control placed upon public sector union demands. If government workers go on strike, where else can consumers go to get their drivers licenses? There is no market mechanism to keep the price of labor in line.
Thanks for posting.
The middle class takes it in shorts thanks to fools and traitors like you, you ugly midget
What would they stand to gain from that, Herr Reichhhhhhhhhhhhh-shuh?
A little Limbaugh lingo, there.
Robert Reich, midget degenerate communist sex pervert and moron, opines on the wonders of marxist trade unions.
Well, the commie union bosses can keep playing their games in court with their flying monkey lawyers, but the red sons of bitches are going to get what they deserve real soon.
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 communist American labor 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.
Criminalize Government employee unions, blatantly illegal mechanisms for raping taxpayers by bribing leftist politicians with money and votes in exchange for unsustainable compensation and benefits.
There’s nothing patently illegal about a POTUS 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
Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of the new GOP Administration.
Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.
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 union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s 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 Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s 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]
Stand up Bobby! Ooops! Sorry. You are standing up.
Bump. It would be interesting to hear short stuff’s ideas on that issue. Good for laughs I’m sure.
The money line of an excellent post.
Another excellent post and I hope you are correct. Warren and other marxist judges provided judicial protection for communist sedition.
Where is the gag/barf alert????
Robert Reich has no conscience. He knows unions drove manufacturing out of our country. Unions bankrupted the companies that did try to manufacture at home. Reich is predicting a new economy? Based on socialism or communism? He doesn’t care which - his assignment is to help destroy what we have left of a capitalist economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.