Bernie Sanders' New Bill Would Wipe Out Union-Busting 'Right-to-Work' Laws

[Hassin Bin Sober]

https://rewire.news/article/2018/05/15/bernie-sanders-new-bill-wipe-union-busting-right-work-laws/

Bernie Sanders’ New Bill Would Wipe Out Union-Busting ‘Right-to-Work’ Laws

The Workplace Democracy Act would roll back the legislative campaign against forming labor unions, which close the gender wage gap and give a marked economic boost to Black and Hispanic workers.

Anti-union legislation—which has negative effects on worker wages, income, and health-care access—would be banned under a bill introduced last week by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
The Workplace Democracy Act, proposed by Sanders in the U.S. Senate and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) in the U.S. House of Representatives, would end so-called right-to-work laws passed by state legislatures as a way to weaken labor unions and attract businesses to states where workers can’t demand livable wages. The pro-union bill comes as teachers unions across the United States stage walkouts to demand decent wages, benefits, and working conditions after a decade of economic austerity policy that has decimated investment in public education.

“Right-to-work” laws have become law in a majority of states, driving down wages, expanding the gender wage gap, and leading to more people working low-wage jobs. States with “right-to-work” laws—which allow workers to benefit from labor union gains without paying monthly dues—have higher poverty rates and lower average pay than states where collective bargaining is not under attack, according to the AFL-CIO. These laws have become commonplace even in states with strong labor union traditions, like Wisconsin and Illinois.

“Republicans like President Trump and [Wisconsin] Governor [Scott] Walker continue to crack down on unions and push a special interest, corporate-driven agenda that makes it harder for middle class families to get ahead,” Pocan said in a statement. “And while they stack the deck against the American worker, unions are fighting to expand economic opportunity and strengthen the middle class.”

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Way to go, Bernie.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

8. But, but, but Bernie is not a registered Democrat!! Why bother listening to Bernie?!

More Bernie bashing in 3, 2, 1... so predictable!!

[rwsanders]

11. OMG...

Now I know how Mowgli felt seeing another human for the first time!!!

Love you people here!!!!

I can say it here and on no other thread...

PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE

Thank you

[QC]

14. !

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Okay, that's funny!! Good one!!

[vi5]

80. Ho-Ly shit!

Amazing. Thank you for that. That perfectly encapsulates it and pretty much just serves as the distilled retort needed every time his name comes up in a positive way on this board.

[Hortensis]

45. Because Democrats have done it already several times?

Because Democrats are the people who both wrote ALL the labor laws still in place and all those Republicans have been able to overset because easily deluded fools shot themselves in the paychecks. AND because Democrats have written and submitted this and many other labor bills since. Because if we held the WH and congress now the Democratic Party would have passed this back in 2017?

This is VERY important to know: third party and dissident types working alone always have had very little to no role in labor law, both because they've always been too weak on their own and because they're historically too intransigent to work with larger groups to achieve advances, leaving those to others.

By all means it's fine for Sanders to do it all over again. And if you want to congratulate him, congratulate him on joining with a Democratic senator to cosponsor this bill. THAT's smart politicking.

What I want to see now is for Sanders to exercise his leadership responsibly by convincing his followers that it's fine to pursue their goals through him as far as they can and as long as they don't conflict with the Democratic Party's efforts, because if the Democratic Party isn't empowered it doesn't happen.

[ehrnst]

48. Stop being logical...

[Hortensis]

59. If you're not part of the "solution,"

you're part of the "precipitate."

Sorry.

[whathehell]

82. My dad was a union organizer

so spare me the history -- I know it

Tell me where the Democrats were during the Wisconsin Uprising of 2010 -- That would be relevant.

[Hortensis]

85. Your dad couldn't have organized more than

Last edited Fri May 18, 2018, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

his own firing if he had joined some weak little group and fought the BIG liberal party of his time and location, whatever its label was. Democratic Party? They would have made it happen without him, because that's the way it always is.

Voter support = power for change. Lots of voters, lots of power. It's the NUMBERS. Little factions are forced to be noisy for attention, and they have a tendency to believe their noise matters, but all the noisy passion and misdirected anger in the world never equaled the power of one quiet vote cast intelligently for the purpose of achieving one's goals on election day.

In any case, there was never a time when any party didn't offer reasons for dissatisfaction. That's because they are all made up of people. SMART people know that and don't allow getting pissed off to distract them into abandoning commitment to achieving their goals. You're obviously proud of your dad, and I'd recommend taking this huge lesson from his success.

Hell, take a lesson from 2016 too. You're in WI or aware of it, for god's sake. How many stupid, self-kneecapping losses do it take to understand that in this era either Democrats or Republicans will take office? And Republican government is exactly what those who sang this song got us.

[whathehell]

87. No shit, Sherlock -- The Party's pathetic level of CURRENT support

would insure it, were he organizing NOW, so, thanks for making my point, but again, where did you say all those labor loving Dems were in 2010 Wisconsin?....Take your time, we can wait.

[stevenleser]

93. Bernie invented it all, he even invented the wheel and the color blue...

[wonkwest]

2. In 3 . . . 2 . . .

Unions really need to be in our Top 3 going into the midterms. How much of the economic degradation felt by Americans on nearly every level has been down to union power being broken over the last four decades?

[whathehell]

22. Economic justice, yes!..

[ehrnst]

49. Yep, what we could have had...

Both a strong social justice and economic justice POTUS.

Hillary Clinton has adjusted to the new economic realities

President Obama was caught in the middle of these changes. Though his presidency evolved to embrace much of them, the foundations of his approach were rooted in the old regime. Hillary Clinton is the first Democratic nominee to have to put forward a new agenda in light of the Great Recession and the policy revolution, and her agenda energetically incorporates these ideas.

On inequality, her proposals build on Dodd-Frank and seek to regulate financial activities more broadly. She would increase taxes on top earners, building on Obama’s successful efforts to push back on after-tax inequality with his 2013 tax increases on the rich.

Somewhat under the radar is Clinton’s focus on "steps to stop corporate concentration in any industry where it’s unfairly limiting competition," while also preventing "concentration in the first place by beefing up the antitrust enforcement." She has specifically mentioned high-speed broadband, airlines, and pharmaceutical companies. In the aftermath of the EpiPen price hikes, Clinton announced an expansive plan to tackle rents — unearned unjustifiable profits — in drug prices.

When it comes to investment and full employment, Clinton herself has said that she will "also defend the Fed's so-called dual mandate," including full employment, with her appointments. Clinton has highlighted short-term financial pressures blocking long-term productive investment in innovation by calling out "quarterly capitalism," the obsessive focus on quarterly earnings reports.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/9/15/12923528/liberal-economics-great-recession-policy-clinton

Good to see Bernie continuing in her footsteps.

[whathehell]

64. Sure, right..

You'te outdoing yourself, now -- Bernie "in her footsteps" ? You're funny.

[whathehell]

88. Lots of it and one by one, states are going, "Right to Work"

So where are all the state level Democrats?...On a national level, what happened to Card Check?...These are all current problems knee jerk recitations of history won't answer.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

3. Once again,

Bernie is trying to show the Democrats what they ought to be supporting.

Sadly, They won't listen yet.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. +1

[wasupaloopa]

62. Bull shit, Bernie has no laws passed. He's proposed things for years that never see the light of

day.

It is one thing to talk big it is another to get things done. Bernie never gets things done!

[stevenleser]

94. Yep, he just put the kiss of death on this happening.

Bernie proposing something is just about a guarantee of it never passing.

As far as getting bills passed, Sanders is the Wayne Terwilliger of Congress. He’s got one of the lowest batting averages of anyone who made it to the big leagues.

[whathehell]

90. Exactly....Bernie is stepping up to the plate

to champion issues the Dems have been neglecting -- Good for him
We obviously need him.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Hassin Bin Sober

[Sherman A1]

5. K&R

Unions are not the entire answer, but they certainly are a big part of it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Nice post HBS... Bernie, once again leading the way!! So proud of Bernie!!

[Squinch]

9. It would.... if it had any chance in hell of doing that. But it doesn't.

[KPN]

15. You may be right. But this helps get it

way closer to mainstream than its the been in the past 4 decades.

[First Speaker]

16. It doesn't matter. It's a goal, an aspiration the Dems need to embrace...

...something they need to do to put this issue into the national dialogue, where it badly needs to be. Attempt to put the anti-labor forces on the defensive, at least a little. Even if it takes a generation to come to fruition--well, the Right's war on labor took a generation to reach maturity, too. The original fight for labor rights took more than a generation. This is important, it's right, and Sanders is greatly to be commended for making it a priority. The national Dem party needs to step up behind him.

[ehrnst]

25. When has supporting unions *not* been a goal embraced by Democratic Party?

It Looks more like Bernie is supporting the legislation that Democratic Party leaders are already working on, which is wise of him to do.

From last November:

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/dem-leaders-unveil-pro-workers-rights-agenda-to-union-praise/

Schumer said the Democratic plan would begin to “unwind a rigged system that undermines every worker’s ability to negotiate with the employer.” Indeed, the reforms would revamp decades-old labor laws that unions believe are too friendly to employers and make it difficult to retain members or add new ones.

The Democratic Party has been out in front of this issue for decades. We have been the leaders on this advocacy.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/

Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights. Hillary was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Hillary will fight to strengthen the labor movement and to protect worker bargaining power. She will continue to stand up against attacks on collective bargaining and work to strengthen workers’ voices.

2012 platform:
http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/democratic-party-platform-backs-workers-rights/
“Democrats believe the right to organize and collective bargaining is a fundamental American value,” the platform says. It pledged the party to fight for “laws that provide a fair process to choose union representation and for increased penalties” for labor law-breakers. Both concepts were key sections of the EFCA."

2008 platform:

Democrats are committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why we support the right to organize. We know that when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. We will restore pro-worker voices to the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board and we support overturning the NLRB's and NMB's many harmful decisions that undermine the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers. We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day, have the right to bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at the Federal Aviation Administration. We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods. We will continue to vigorously oppose "Right-to-Work" Laws and "paycheck protection" efforts whenever they are proposed. Suspending labor protections during national emergencies compounds the devastation from the emergency. We opposed suspension of Davis-Bacon following Hurricane Katrina, and we support broad application of Davis-Bacon worker protections to all federal projects. We will stop the abuse of privatization of government jobs. We will end the exploitative practice of employers wrongly misclassifying workers as independent contractors.

2004 platform:

Standing up for workers. We will ensure that the right to organize a union exists in the real world,
not just on paper, because that's how we create more jobs that can support families. That means
reforming our labor laws to protect the rights of workers (including public employees) to bargain
contracts and organize on a level playing field without interference. It also means barring the permanent
replacement of legal strikers. And we will of course reverse this Administration's cuts in wages for
working people by restoring overtime protections for hard-working Americans. We will strengthen
health and safety protections as well.

2000 Platform:

Now we must go further - not just playing defense against misguided Republican attempts to set back the cause of worker's rights, but moving the ball forward. We need a new national law banning permanent striker replacement workers - so that workers' right to organize into a union and bargain with their employers are never compromised. While we have made the workplace the safest ever, we need to further increase workplace safety. We should stiffen penalties for employer interference with the right to organize and violations of other worker rights. We must also reform labor laws to protect workers' rights to exercise their voices and organize into unions by providing for a more level playing field between management and labor during organizing drives, and facilitating the ability of workers to organize and to bargain collectively.

[ismnotwasm]

65. I can't even with these threads

I know there is a satisfaction with certain amount of attention seeking, you know picking sides, or whatever—I get that, or maybe people think the topic of labor is hilarious, I don’t know.

When I think of all the work unions and Democrats and the Democratic Party have put in, some lost their jobs, some lost their families, some lost their lives, some dedicated their entire lives TO labor issues and labor justice. To have somebody come along misinformed, maybe malinformed, and imply labor is a issue new to Democrats or one Democrats don’t care about, I just. can’t. My eyes won’t roll that high, and I get completely disgusted.

[ehrnst]

73. The narrative that Democrats have "failed" to even speak about social & economic justice

in the last 40 years promotes the interests of certain politicians and orgs courting Democratic voters.

This dualistic thinking, promoted by Our Revolution, purports that there is only "Progressive/results" (Sanders) and "Corrupt/failed" (anyone who disagrees with Sanders).

This has expanded retroactively to claim that Bernie "has been the lone voice in the wilderness" for any progressive ideas since the mid '70's, ignoring any other politician, leader or group who has demonstrated actual results in progressive policy.

Our Revolution appears to want to replicate the Tea Party, but doesn't seem to be able to get any of their preferred candidates the votes needed.

[whathehell]

23. If the Democratic Party got behind economic issues

to the degree they do the social issues, it might.

[Squinch]

24. You might want to review the platform.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Oh stop already

Candidates win (or lose) elections, not platforms.

[Squinch]

57. Lol.

[whathehell]

36. You might want to review the "Third Way"

while checking out the last time a leading Democrat talked unions.

[ehrnst]

42. Last time? Again...

Or is Hillary Clinton, the overwhelming choice of Democrats for the 2016 nomination, BTW, not a "leading Democrat?"

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/

Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights. Hillary was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Hillary will fight to strengthen the labor movement and to protect worker bargaining power. She will continue to stand up against attacks on collective bargaining and work to strengthen workers’ voices.

I also think you might want to familiarize yourself with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi - I think one might refer to them as "leading Democrats" just last November.


https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/dem-leaders-unveil-pro-workers-rights-agenda-to-union-praise/

Schumer said the Democratic plan would begin to “unwind a rigged system that undermines every worker’s ability to negotiate with the employer.” Indeed, the reforms would revamp decades-old labor laws that unions believe are too friendly to employers and make it difficult to retain members or add new ones.

You're welcome.

If you're interested in learning more about the Democratic party, and what they've been doing the last several decades, may I recommend:

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-history

You won't find that over at JPR.

[whathehell]

52. Any vid clips?

Nah..I didn't think so...Like I said, something done frequently & emphatically enough to actually register in public perception.
Showing up at the Wisconsin Uprising WOULD qualify, but, yeah..That was passed on by EVERY leading democrat -- The only "Democrat" they got to show was Ed Schultz.

"Knowing about "the Democratic party"? Honey, you need to take your absurd arrogance elsewhere -- At age 68, I've been politically active since you were doing diapers. Have a good one.

[ehrnst]

75. Vid clips?

Of her reading the text on her website?

That's getting desperate, hon.

But I'll play your silly game.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4619090/hillary-clintons-labor-day-speech

No video, but media

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/09/hillary-clinton-employers-jail-labor-day/

You're welcome.

And you, who clearly never supported her, have crowned yourself the arbiter of what HRC said did and didn't "register in public?"

But hey, it registered here, didn't it?
http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2016/11/22/on-the-contrary-american-labor-and-the-2016-elections/

I'mma guess you reading the Russian Bot posts and pages on FB.

And I see that "going to Wisconsin" is the only actual strategy you seem to be able to offer for future progressive wins...

Yeah, keep on using that ignore button. It'll keep your blood pressure down - cognitive bias is stubborn.

"Doing diapers?" Careful, hon. That could come back to bite you in the ass...

[George II]

50. I posted a link to the most recent platform, 2016, with excerpts. Please give it a read.

[whathehell]

53. I don't see it

but again, the "platform"" does not qualify as effective "outreach".

[George II]

55. Post #47. The platform presents the framework upon which ALL Democrats in a particular year.....

....conduct their campaigns.

[whathehell]

56. I know what the platform is

but it's not enough to STATE a position, you have to act on it and they've done little in that regard.

[Squinch]

58. You mean they haven't proposed any vanity bills that have no possibility of going anywhere?

OK. I'll give you that.

[whathehell]

63. Lol..Nice try, but no I do not mean that

so sorry, but no "gotcha" there.

[whathehell]

92. Um, no

that's not at at all what I mean, so I'm afraid there's no "gotcha"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. THIS

[ehrnst]

89. Oh. So you didn't hear about this?

From last November:

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/dem-leaders-unveil-pro-workers-rights-agenda-to-union-praise/

Schumer said the Democratic plan would begin to “unwind a rigged system that undermines every worker’s ability to negotiate with the employer.” Indeed, the reforms would revamp decades-old labor laws that unions believe are too friendly to employers and make it difficult to retain members or add new ones.

Bernie has embraced the Democrats' policies again.

You're welcome.

[ehrnst]

76. Because you didn't read it?

It's the basis for Democratic messaging.

If one isn't a Democrat, then one can't really be held to it.

Right?

[ehrnst]

28. When has the Democratic party not been the leader in economic issues?

Hillary especially:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/9/15/12923528/liberal-economics-great-recession-policy-clinton

The Democratic primary, and now the general election, have provided a sense of the degree to which the policy baseline has been reset. The shift is evident in the way Hillary Clinton has not only engaged with these ideas but incorporated them into her platform.

The new liberal economics makes several claims:

Inequality is not a regrettable but inevitable byproduct of an efficient economy, nor a temporary, self-correcting trend. It’s driven by policy choices, and new choices can make a difference.

The economy will not simply bounce back from any weaknesses, as was assumed under Alan Greenspan’s Great Moderation. Rather, there are deep structural problems that include a global savings glut and unwillingness by US companies to make investments.
"Nudging" the private market is not always the best way to deliver core goods and economic security. Deploying government services directly can be more effective.

Hillary Clinton has adjusted to the new economic realities

President Obama was caught in the middle of these changes. Though his presidency evolved to embrace much of them, the foundations of his approach were rooted in the old regime. Hillary Clinton is the first Democratic nominee to have to put forward a new agenda in light of the Great Recession and the policy revolution, and her agenda energetically incorporates these ideas.

On inequality, her proposals build on Dodd-Frank and seek to regulate financial activities more broadly. She would increase taxes on top earners, building on Obama’s successful efforts to push back on after-tax inequality with his 2013 tax increases on the rich.

Somewhat under the radar is Clinton’s focus on "steps to stop corporate concentration in any industry where it’s unfairly limiting competition," while also preventing "concentration in the first place by beefing up the antitrust enforcement." She has specifically mentioned high-speed broadband, airlines, and pharmaceutical companies. In the aftermath of the EpiPen price hikes, Clinton announced an expansive plan to tackle rents — unearned unjustifiable profits — in drug prices.

When it comes to investment and full employment, Clinton herself has said that she will "also defend the Fed's so-called dual mandate," including full employment, with her appointments. Clinton has highlighted short-term financial pressures blocking long-term productive investment in innovation by calling out "quarterly capitalism," the obsessive focus on quarterly earnings reports.

From the 2012 platform:

Rebuilding Middle Class Security

We’ve come a long way since 2008. The President took office in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the
Great Depression; that month 800,000 Americans lost their jobs – more than in any single month in the previous 60
years. On Day One, he took immediate action to stop the free fall and put Americans back to work. In the midst of the
crisis, President Obama knew what Democrats have always known: that American workers are tougher than tough
times. Since early 2010, the private sector has created 4.5 million jobs, and American manufacturing is growing for
the first time since the 1990s.
The President knew from the start that to rebuild true middle class security, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.
We must out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the world. We need an economy that creates the jobs of the future
and makes things the rest of the world buys – not one built on outsourcing, loopholes, or risky financial deals that
jeopardize everyone, especially the middle class.
We’ve already made historic progress. States have more flexibility to raise standards and reform schools, more
students are receiving grants and scholarships, and young adults can stay on their parents’ health insurance plans as
they finish their education and enter the workforce. More working families than ever before have received tax cuts,
and fuel-efficiency standards are doubling. The President cracked down on Wall Street recklessness and abuses by
health insurance, credit card, and mortgage companies.

Our work is far from done. A crisis this deep didn’t happen overnight and it won’t be solved overnight.
Too many parents sit around their kitchen tables at night after they’ve put their kids to bed, worrying about how they
will make a mortgage payment or pay the rent, or how they will put their children through college. We now stand at a
make-or-break moment for families, and America faces a clear choice in this election: move forward toward a nation
built from the middle class out where everyone has the chance to get ahead, or go back to the same failed ideas that
created the crisis in the first place.

The Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have a very different idea about where they want to take this country.
To pay for their trillions in additional tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires, they’ll raise taxes on the
middle class and gut our investments in education, research and technology, and new roads, bridges, and airports.
They’ll end Medicare as we know it. They want to let Wall Street write its own rules again and allow insurance
companies to once again deny health care to working families. Their troubling and familiar economic scheme doubles
down on the same bad ideas of the last decade while arguing that, somehow, this time, they’ll lead to a different
result. We can’t afford to go back or abandon the change we’ve fought so hard for. We have to move forward

[SharonClark]

31. K&R

[whathehell]

35. When?

when they adopted the "Third Way" and stopped talking about about unions.

[ehrnst]

37. Can you specify?

Link please.

Must've been awhile ago, because I just looked at the 2000 platform, and it's pro-union.

However, you said:

If the Democratic Party got behind economic issues

to the degree they do the social issues, it might.

You are claiming that they are not currently - when clearly Hillary's plan was very, very strong on economic issues. I know that you really are irriated by her, but it appears you didn't even bother to learn what her proposals were. She was the candidate, like it or not, chosen by Democratic voters, and as such was the standard bearer for progressive Democratic policies on economics.

In case you missed this, here it is again:


https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/9/15/12923528/liberal-economics-great-recession-policy-clinton

The Democratic primary, and now the general election, have provided a sense of the degree to which the policy baseline has been reset. The shift is evident in the way Hillary Clinton has not only engaged with these ideas but incorporated them into her platform.

The new liberal economics makes several claims:

Inequality is not a regrettable but inevitable byproduct of an efficient economy, nor a temporary, self-correcting trend. It’s driven by policy choices, and new choices can make a difference.

The economy will not simply bounce back from any weaknesses, as was assumed under Alan Greenspan’s Great Moderation. Rather, there are deep structural problems that include a global savings glut and unwillingness by US companies to make investments.
"Nudging" the private market is not always the best way to deliver core goods and economic security. Deploying government services directly can be more effective.

Hillary Clinton has adjusted to the new economic realities

President Obama was caught in the middle of these changes. Though his presidency evolved to embrace much of them, the foundations of his approach were rooted in the old regime. Hillary Clinton is the first Democratic nominee to have to put forward a new agenda in light of the Great Recession and the policy revolution, and her agenda energetically incorporates these ideas.

On inequality, her proposals build on Dodd-Frank and seek to regulate financial activities more broadly. She would increase taxes on top earners, building on Obama’s successful efforts to push back on after-tax inequality with his 2013 tax increases on the rich.

Somewhat under the radar is Clinton’s focus on "steps to stop corporate concentration in any industry where it’s unfairly limiting competition," while also preventing "concentration in the first place by beefing up the antitrust enforcement." She has specifically mentioned high-speed broadband, airlines, and pharmaceutical companies. In the aftermath of the EpiPen price hikes, Clinton announced an expansive plan to tackle rents — unearned unjustifiable profits — in drug prices.

When it comes to investment and full employment, Clinton herself has said that she will "also defend the Fed's so-called dual mandate," including full employment, with her appointments. Clinton has highlighted short-term financial pressures blocking long-term productive investment in innovation by calling out "quarterly capitalism," the obsessive focus on quarterly earnings reports.

And the Democratic leadership seems to be able to handle both economic and social issues, and was promoting this last November:

The Democratic leadership united Wednesday to end all state right-to-work laws, saying labor unions need to be protected from their impact.

The Democrats' agenda would strip the workers in 27 states of the right to refuse to join or otherwise financially support a union as a condition of employment.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, and other top party officials joined with top labor leaders Wednesday to announce their joint "A Better Deal" agenda to boost the union movement. A key plank in the agenda is "Ban state laws that undermine worker freedoms to join together and negotiate," which the agenda later identifies as right-to-work laws.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-leaders-call-for-end-to-right-to-work

You're welcome.

[whathehell]

38. Lol

So you "just looked at the 2000 platform and it's pro- union"... Really?. ..Wow..You mean they got a "mention" in a platform almost twenty years ago? Just huge..What about the 2008 and 20016 elections? No dice?..Not even what amounts to lip service?

Excuse me for laughing, but, first of all, no one looks at, or remembers "the platform" and your reference does go back a long time.. Much as I loved Obama, he lost a huge opportunity when he failed to show up at, or offer virtually any support to the Union Protests at the at the Madison Wisconsin Uprising in 2010.

[ehrnst]

41. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with that Google...

Excuse me for laughing, but I would think that a Democrat, especially one that feels entitled to post on "Democratic Underground" would have a passing knowledge of the Democratic Party.

Here you go:

2008 platform:

Democrats are committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why we support the right to organize. We know that when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. We will restore pro-worker voices to the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board and we support overturning the NLRB's and NMB's many harmful decisions that undermine the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers. We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day, have the right to bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at the Federal Aviation Administration. We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods. We will continue to vigorously oppose "Right-to-Work" Laws and "paycheck protection" efforts whenever they are proposed. Suspending labor protections during national emergencies compounds the devastation from the emergency. We opposed suspension of Davis-Bacon following Hurricane Katrina, and we support broad application of Davis-Bacon worker protections to all federal projects. We will stop the abuse of privatization of government jobs. We will end the exploitative practice of employers wrongly misclassifying workers as independent contractors.

2004 platform:

Standing up for workers. We will ensure that the right to organize a union exists in the real world,
not just on paper, because that's how we create more jobs that can support families. That means
reforming our labor laws to protect the rights of workers (including public employees) to bargain
contracts and organize on a level playing field without interference. It also means barring the permanent
replacement of legal strikers. And we will of course reverse this Administration's cuts in wages for
working people by restoring overtime protections for hard-working Americans. We will strengthen
health and safety protections as well.

2000 Platform:

Now we must go further - not just playing defense against misguided Republican attempts to set back the cause of worker's rights, but moving the ball forward. We need a new national law banning permanent striker replacement workers - so that workers' right to organize into a union and bargain with their employers are never compromised. While we have made the workplace the safest ever, we need to further increase workplace safety. We should stiffen penalties for employer interference with the right to organize and violations of other worker rights. We must also reform labor laws to protect workers' rights to exercise their voices and organize into unions by providing for a more level playing field between management and labor during organizing drives, and facilitating the ability of workers to organize and to bargain collectively.

You're welcome.

Also, while neo-progressives like Jill Stein have the time to head to every photo op at a protest, POTUS has a very different task, with different metrics of efficacy and adminstrative duties that I think many of Jill's ilk have little understanding of.

I'm sure there are those who are deeply disappointed he didn't show up to his swearing in in a dashiki, but they'll live, and he managed to actually get progressive policies in place, rather than simply offering lip service.

He understood when stepping in would matter most:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021705494.html

[whathehell]

71. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the Ignore function

Let me demonstrate it for you. Buh bye.

[ehrnst]

72. "Losing gracefully"

Google it.

Buh bye.

[George II]

47. No one looks at or remembers the platform? Then how do you know...

....that there isn't even "lip service" in the 2016 platform? Surely you must have looked at it, eh?

Here's a link, check it out:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Excerpts:

Pages 7 and 8:

Raising Workers’ Wages

Democrats believe that the current minimum wage is a starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union and will work in every way we can—in Congress and the federal government, in states and with the private sector—to reach this goal.

....give all Americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work....

Democrats support a model employer executive order or some other vehicle to leverage federal dollars to support employers who provide their workers with a living wage, good benefits, and the opportunity to form a union without reprisal...

Protecting Workers’ Fundamental Rights

A major factor in the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits have been under attack at all levels. Donald Trump would make matters worse by creating a race to the bottom where the middle class is fighting over fewer and fewer good-paying jobs. In fact, Trump rejected some attempts by his own employees to unionize and has personally hired union-busting firms to undermine workers’ rights.

Democrats believe so-called “right to work” laws are wrong for workers—such as teachers and other public employees who serve our communities every day—and wrong for America. We will continue to vigorously oppose those laws and other efforts that would eliminate dues check-off procedures, roll-back prevailing wage standards, abolish fair share requirements, restrict the use of voluntary membership payments for political purposes, attack seniority, restrict due process protections, and require annual recertification efforts. We oppose legislation and lawsuits that would strike down laws protecting the rights of teachers and other public employees.

We will defend President Obama's overtime rule, which protects of millions of workers by paying them fairly for their hard work.

The Democratic Party believes consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors who have been mistreated should never be denied their right to fight for fair treatment under the law. That is why we will support efforts to limit the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment and service contracts, which unfairly strip consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors of their right to their day in court.

Page 32

Democrats support high labor standards in clean energy infrastructure and the right to form or join a union...

[whathehell]

67. Lol..I do not know, which is why I asked

I assumed as much because you only cited the one from way back in 2000.

[George II]

68. I "only cited the one from way back in 2000"? I provided the 2016 platform for your review....

You may want to recharge your flux capacitor.

[whathehell]

70. Just now you did, but not before..

Maybe you want to re-charge yours.

[George II]

79. Say what? You responded to the post where I provided the 2016 platform with excerpts (#47)....

...with "you only cited the one from way back in 2000."!!!!! And then you respond AGAIN with "just now you did, but not before.."

So what's the deal? Did you actually read anything I said or just responded reflexively? Or perhaps you're just not interested in acknowledging the fact that the platforms (and policies) of the Democratic Party have included support for unions for decades if not longer.

Have a great day.

[betsuni]

30. whathehell are you talking about.

[Eliot Rosewater]

43. The HATE that is allowed to be posted here about the Democratic Party astounds me.

[C Moon]

44. Yeah, I did a double take on that one.

[mountain grammy]

10. K&R

[whathehell]

12. Yes!!

Go Bernie!

[KPN]

13. Way to go Mark Pocan and Bernie Sanders.

Thank you Hassin -- though I think you Havbin.

[BannonsLiver]

17. Great idea. What are the chances it becomes law?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Zero if we never talk about it or give voters a reason to vote for our side...

You’re welcome.

[BannonsLiver]

19. Hold on a sec, Dean Wormer wants to chime in

Bernie has a lot of good ideas. That said, the problem with Bernie’s ideas often comes at the “making it a reality” phase of the process. Not a lot of runs on the scoreboard in that department, I’m afraid.

But it is good 2020 campaign fodder, as you alluded to. I suspect that hasn’t been lost on Bernie.

[smirkymonkey]

39. That's the problem. Bernie is a visionary. He has a lot of great ideas, unfortunately he

doesn't really bother too much with the details. I think it is important to have someone who champions progressive ideals the way he does, but he needs to join forces with people who can make it happen. People who are doers. People like Hillary. Not that I think Hillary is ever going to run again, but we need more than someone with just a vision, we need someone on our team who has a plan, a strategy and a way to make those ideas a reality.

[NurseJackie]

69. That "joining of forces" isn't likely to happen. There aren't many who are likely to cozy-up...

but he needs to join forces with people who can make it happen.

That "joining of forces" isn't likely to happen. There aren't many who are likely to cozy-up to someone who routinely and loudly smears, attacks and insults Democrats and the Democratic party by calling Democrats "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt" and "feeble". Every indication is that he hates and distrusts the Democratic party. And (surprise, surprise) as a result the ill-will that's caused by his divisive rhetoric is returned in-kind by many. Why is everyone so shocked, upset and offended by that?

a strategy and a way to make those ideas a reality.

You mean, like, without intentionally alienating people? Uh-huh, I'm sure that's going to happen.

Bernie is a visionary.

I completely disagree.

All I'm saying is, if it was true that he was a "visionary" (and taken at literal face value, the word alone implies "wisdom" and "ingenuity" and "creativity'') then he wouldn't be intentionally alienating the people (and voters) that he needs. This alone demonstrates clearly the exaggerative nature of the excessively flattering word that was chosen.

[whathehell]

84. Maybe people like Hillary

should join forces with him -- They could reaquaint themselves with their own roots -- It would be a homecoming.

[Demsrule86]

26. Zero because we don't have any power...earliest would be 2021...I just don't believe in putting up

bills that go nowhere. And it will certainly be used as campaign fodder why take the risk for nothing?

[ehrnst]

46. Well, at least until we take back congress.

[Orsino]

32. What are the chances we want it to be law? n/t

[leftstreet]

20. DURec

[Clarity2]

29. Even if it doesnt pass

This fight should be taken to the supreme court and SHOULD win eventually. If you are benefiting from a union, you should be paying for their service. Its as simple as that. If you are not paying your dues, you should be negotiating your own salary and benefits. Its called representation, and its not free, nor should it ever be.

[whathehell]

40. + 10000. n/t.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. +10001

[ladjf]

33. Good move Senator. nt

[disillusioned73]

34. K&R..

unions have been decimated ever since Reagan the horrible got into office.. vote out all trickle down politicians..

[George II]

51. All part of the 2016 Democratic Party Platform.

[JCanete]

60. Good, so we can expect to see more bills in this vein. Its looking like a promising direction we're

going in.

Why do I have a feeling that if somebody...oh I don't know, Gillibrand, came out with a bill to incorporate banking into our post offices, that some of the usual suspects might pipe up, "actual legislation...not just talking about it..."

[George II]

66. Yes, and there have been bills in this vein before by Democrats....

And as of when the OP was posted the bill that was introduced was Pocan's in the House. Sanders hadn't gotten around to introducing his bill, just a one page press release on his Senate website describing the proposed legislation.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/workplace-democracy-act-summary-?inline=file

THAT is why people (not the offensive "usual suspects" ) pipe up with what you say. At this moment, at least when the OP was posted, there was no actual legislation introduced, just proposed.

Do know if it's been formally introduced yet?

[vi5]

81. Excellent!

So when we get back in charge I look forward to full Democratic support for such a bill being advanced.

And individual bills in states that are Democratically controlled.

And in the absence of that I expect many Democrats to be touting this position and speaking about it so it's clear to all voters that this is our position and we want it to be known even if obstructionist Republicans prevent it from happening.

[LiberalFighter]

54. Personally, I don't think employers should have a say or allowed to take any actions.

It is an employee based union. Therefore only employees should have say in anything.

[wasupaloopa]

61. What Bernie bill has ever become law?

[Dalida]

74. If this can become law, great!

But it's not going to happen without Democratic majorities in both chambers...

[alarimer]

83. This is important

Not sure it has much of a chance, but it is good to be talking about this stuff. The Koch brothers have done their best to keep people working long hours at shitty jobs with no rights.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. "Right-to-Work" laws

are the most spectacularly misnamed/mis-represented laws ever written.

[whathehell]

91. Yes

and unless I've missed a lot, Dems have been basically quiet about them, so thanks, Bernie.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

95. Yeah

I don't get that. Seems like it would be easy to expose them as a sham. Most average people probably don't even notice it when these laws come up for a vote and/or think that "right-to-work" laws mean something that they totally don't.