I Stand with the Unions and Their Workers Over ANY Politician!

[last1standing]

What more need be said?

[last1standing]

1. It makes a real statement on DU when the first thing someone does...

Is Unrec that statement. Things sure have changed, haven't they?

[Jim Sagle]

3. The DLC Hogwash Gang don't like unions much.

[dionysus]

115. but you backed a DLC to the bone candidate.

when did you suddenly have a change of heart?
:shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

120. The choice was Clinton or Obama. I made one choice and you evidently made the other.

Wanna rehash?

[dionysus]

125. nah, i'm good.

[Dinger]

4. It Was No Democrat That Gave The Unrec

Just sayin'.

[QC]

6. The right wing takeover of this site has truly been a wonder to behold, hasn't it? n/t

[last1standing]

7. In the last two days I've had posters tell me that unions workers were overpaid...

And that they did nothing but sit on their asses collecting great health care and fat checks.

I also got into with a few posters who think that the unions should be forced to break their contracts and renegotiate them in the middle of a massive recession and over 10% unemployment. Their opinion was that we should just let the chips fall where they may.

I guess that's progress... in a way. :shrug:

[QC]

9. Public school teachers have been the very personification of evil here for a year or so.

Ever since Arne Duncan started trashing them.

[last1standing]

13. It's the very definition of "Fair weather friend".

They sure loved all us progressives, GLBTers, and union workers during the election, didn't they?

[ThomCat]

22. No, they took us for granted and demanded our money and support.

There has always been the attitude, only barely concealed that "you people" will cost us the election if you don't shut up and start towing the line. :(

They don't care what we think, what we want, or if the party utterly fails to represent our needs. We don't count. All they care about is that we march with party and open our wallets, because they think the party supports THEIR needs. It is all about them.

I'm sure they're going to be pretty damned upset when they realize that the party has sold out so much to corporate interests that it doesn't care about their needs either. But we don't want it to get that far. And if it does, I'm sure they'll blame us and say it is all our fault somehow.

[Odin2005]

133. I have issues with public schools for very personal reasons (hint: PTSD is involved), and think...

that the Educational System needs to be redone from the ground up, but What Arnie Duncan is doing is complete utter BS.

[donco6]

49. Check out the education forum sometime.

It's a cesspool of anti-union sentiment.

[dana_b]

75. people who say crap like that

are so ignorant of history and what the unions have done not just for themselves but all American workers.

[roguevalley]

123. amazing, no? Bring everyone down into poverty and not bring everyone

up into a livable wage.

[Goldstein1984]

25. I think it's a Right Wing takeover of the Democratic Party

Progressives aren't leaving the party, the party is leaving us.

Only Progressives are what the Democratic Party once was--progressive.

[inthebrain]

67. You mean under Woodrow Wilson?

Progressives have a spotty history in the Democratic party at best. Even today gone are the true reformers and what we're left with are the moderate conservatism of the Blue Dogs and with the DLC. That's prett much the entire party.

I don't think the progressives have ever laid out a set of ideals and really stuck by them. They are just as caught up in the reactionary politics as every one else. What is left, those bending to the right, are the progressives. Isn't James Carville a self professed progressive?

[Goldstein1984]

88. I was thinking of Bill Clinton being the Neocon sellout

I think of democratic and progressive ideals as being identical. I left the party ten years ago when it abandoned those ideals.

"Progressivism" does have a spotty history as a label. I think the recent revival of the label has only occurred because as the party strayed away from those ideals, and still claimed to be the party of liberals and the Left, people with progressive ideals revived it.

That's just my take. I do understand that many would disagree, especially those who do still believe that the Democratic Party is still what it was during the Civil Rights Movement. Today's Party would never be that anti-establishment. They'd miss the perks of being in bed with Wall Street.

[ThomCat]

17. That really is sad.

:(

There used to be a time when Democrats realized the immense value Unions contribute to our nation and society.

There used to be a time when Democrats realized how important and urgent it is to maintain the power of Unions to help counterbalance the power of corporate executives and wealthy oligarchs.

Where are we headed when Democrats are against the organizations that represent working people?

[dionysus]

116. they probably were unreccing you, not your statement.

[last1standing]

119. So you agree it was just hateful people with nothing better to do.

Glad we agree.

[dionysus]

122. i don't use the feature myself. don't see hatred involved though.

[Dinger]

2. Kick And Rec

You speak for me.

[last1standing]

5. Thanks. Amazing, isn't it?

Isn't it amazing that a place calling itself "DemocraticUnderground" can't muster up support for the working class?

[Dinger]

8. It's Been A Trend For A While

You can count public teacher unions too.

[last1standing]

11. And so many more...

Public teachers, auto workers, firefighters, police, nurses, postal employees, sanitation workers, commercial fishermen, construction workers, and the list goes on. These are the people who built this country and keep it running.

Yet, today posters have told me that they're just lazy desk jockeys collecting fat checks and overpriced healthcare they didn't deserve. They've said they want the government to break their contracts and force them to renegotiate their jobs in the middle of a massive recession and over 10% unemployment.

Its just unreal.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. I've learned that $50K a year is rich.

I remember back when we used to make fun of people at that income level voting Republican because they thought they were rich. Now people at that level are rich assholes who should have the shit taxed out of them so they too can be poor. I remember when we supported a strong middle class here.

[last1standing]

19. See post #16.

Hard to believe the level of resentment it takes to post that kind of comment.

[electricD]

139. amazing

Yet, today posters have told me that they're just lazy desk jockeys collecting fat checks and overpriced healthcare they didn't deserve.

I'd be more than willing for one of those idiots to take a good look at my paychecks....before I joined the union...my paycheck sucked extremely...after I joined a union...trust me...it still sucks but I can atleast pay my bills.

fraternally,
electricD
IBEW L.U. 474

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. Sorry, but Unions aren't working class.

They are middle class. I would love a union job, getting $20 an hour and good benefits. But I am one of the actual working class, getting $10 an hour and no benefits, living paycheck to paycheck. Our name is legion. Unions have absolutely nothing to do with my life. Today I heard something about unions protesting the tax on Cadillac taxes. What? You need to pay $780 (or like $2000 month if the plan covers your family) a month to a health insurance plan to qualify for that tax. $780 is like half of what I get paid. I went to ehealthinsurance.com and couldn't FIND a plan that expensive. I don't relate to union politics at all.

[last1standing]

18. So you'd rather drag everyone down to your level instead of working to move up?

I can't help that you resent the workers who banded together to create a living wage for themselves but would still be very happy to see you become one of them.

But for the record, there are really only two classes, the investment class and the working class. The working class creates wealth while the investment class works to steal it.

[napoleon_in_rags]

28. No they would not be happy bring us up. That is the problem.

They are far, far too comfortable in their lives to work on organizing others. The days of the Wobblies are long behind us. The Union class is another "got mine" class totally oblivious to the vast and growing numbers getting $9 an hour to serve them at Wal-Mart on their negotiated weekends off, and seeing no problem with that.

You are right about the working and investment class, but that's not how the average teacher or few remaining tradesmen see it. They way they look down at the fast food worker just as the investment class does. The fact that we are exactly the same is exactly why all the previously union US manufacturing jobs are going to China, who have figured out that $9 an hour workers can do the same as $25 an hour US workers. Until these facts are woken up too, unions will remain an ever dwindling minority of middle class Americans calling themselves "working class" while the actual working class, pervasive but totally invisible to their eyes, is actively courted by churches and pundits of the right who offer the only glimpses of hope to our plight.

[last1standing]

31. You really are wrong. Very wrong.

Its not Unions keeping you down, it's corporate lobbyists and anti-worker politicians creating union-busting laws and spewing out anti-worker propaganda - which you've fallen for. I suggest you look to the root of the problem, not a symptom.

[napoleon_in_rags]

40. Question: Why are Jehovah's Witnesses 10 times more effective than unions?

Why can I count several times Jehovah's witnesses have approached me trying to get me to join their group, but can't think of a SINGLE time AFL-CIO or any other union has? Where ARE you guys?

Believe me, I am with unions 100% over the parasitic "investor class". But what I'm talking about here is effectiveness. I'm talking Dem to Dem, telling you that unions ARE NOT connecting with working people in this country, and wondering why.

PEace

[last1standing]

43. Because in many states its legal to fire you for talking to a Union recruiter.

They can't fire you for talking to a Witness. Also, it would be a bit impractical for the Teamsters to go door to door on Sundays asking for members. Once again, look to the laws in your state to find the answers.

[napoleon_in_rags]

59. And look at how hard unions protest that.

Oh wait, they don't. However when it comes to a plan that taxes health care plans that cost over $2000 per family a month to pay for care for the ACTUAL working class with no health insurance, they are up in fucking arms:
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/09/the-cadillac-tax-on-health-insurance-%E2%80%93-obama-bites-the-union-hands-that-feed-him/

This isn't propaganda, its observation.

[last1standing]

62. OK. Now I know you're just blowing smoke.

Of course they protest it. If you haven't read about their work to Unionize Walmarts or Starbuck or many, many other companies then you haven't wanted to hear it. If you can't be bothered to even look into your state's Union related laws, then you certainly won't spend a month or a week or even a day on the picket lines to Unionize your company.

[napoleon_in_rags]

81. Okay, lets cut through it all.

My company right now is too small, there is not enough money in organizing it. But I will call the AFL-CIO on monday and ask what I can do for them. I will apply the Jehovah's witness test, see if they are as welcoming. I will get back to you and let you know what happens.

[last1standing]

94. I think that's a fantastic plan!

But I'm going to seriously suggest before you make any move to organize your company that you check your state laws. Attempted organizing can get you fired quickly without recourse in many states.

[flyarm]

77. IT IS NOT UP TO OTHERS TO COME TO YOU TO ORGANIZE..

it is up to you to organize ..and then call in a Union or Union reps..no one is your keeper..or your daddy ...get off your ass and organize yourself!

[levander]

50. Couldn't the same argument be used against "tax the rich"?

The whole thing about:

So you'd rather drag everyone down to your level instead of working to move up?

[last1standing]

69. You're really reaching here. Taxing the wealthy is basic progressive philosophy.

It does not drag them down because taxing income does not take away more than they can afford like this plan will do. Does your comment mean that you support a flat tax or national sales tax instead?

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Sad to see the anti-union propaganda working so effectively

On people like you, who could benefit so much from organizing for better pay and treatment. Despite the steady erosion of wages and protections which have led to the conditions you now work in, you still have the labor movement to thank for the fact that you have some rights. Unions brought you weekends, overtime pay, and the eradication of child labor. Rather than trying to drag your fellow workers down to your level you ought to join with them to raise yours. The Chamber of Commerce laughs at you all the way to the bank.

[napoleon_in_rags]

37. So where are they? Where are the Teamsters? Where is the AFL-CIO?

I'm waiting for them. I support their ideology. I read stories about the Wobblies with great joy.

But in praxis, I see them as a class above me that is FAR too happy to stay that way. Example: I have to walk home from work a few miles on Sunday nights and certain holidays. Why? Because the bus drivers are union. On these holidays, what will they do? They will go out to restaurants with their families. And there they will be served by members of MY class, who don't get the holidays or weekends or nights off. Do you really believe they don't want to keep it that way? I don't. I have never in my life been approached by a union member asking me to organize. Never. They reach a certain level of "got mine" and realize that they don't really want that movie theater worker to have days off on the weekend like they do, because then they couldn't go out.

This is why union numbers in the US are dwindling, and they are ultimately doomed. If your serious about organizing me, I'm all with you. But if you're about getting paid 3 times as much as me with benefits and calling yourself "working class", you are WAY off base.

[last1standing]

41. Strange, I was in a Union when I made $3.35/hr (minimum wage) at a grocery store.

So don't try to tell me that Unions don't want low paid workers, because I'm living proof they do. Don't believe me, then check out Meijer Thrifty Acres in Michigan and see if they're unionized (why, yes they are). Its not the Unions who are keeping you from Unionizing, its both anti-Union propagandists (as seen on this thread) and corporate control of state and federal government.

A wise man finds out who is to blame before making accusations.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Okay, so the unions may not be as effective as they ought to be in reaching out to you.

But are they your enemy? Are they the ones keeping your wages low? And are you positive that buses aren't running when you need them because of union drivers and not because of decisions made by your city? I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be drivers available and eager to work in this current economy. Also, I don't know what state you live in (what kind of anti-union laws they have) or what company you work for (and what kind of union-busting mechanisms they have in place) so I can't really speak to why you haven't been approached to join a union. Have you approached them? Unions are only as good as the people in them and maybe the ones in your area need some new blood.

[napoleon_in_rags]

78. This is a Dem to Dem argument.

Which is to say, of course I stand on the same side with unions. I am a good soldier. But I have some real grievances with unions as they've been operating as well, and most of it is stemming from unions protesting the Cadillac tax, which only taxes profoundly expensive plans.

[sabrina 1]

114. Do you know that Union Workers gave up pay raises

over many years in order to get better benefits for their families? Those premiums are not luxury premiums. And, as far as I know, the figures claiming that the threshold is '$8,000' for an individual and $23, 000 for a family, apparently is a combination of the employer and employee contributions. If that is the case, and I intend to verify it, then it is even worse that we thought.

As far as being angry at people who fought for their rights because they haven't come looking for you, that is utterly ridiculous. You haven't said what company you work for or what state you live in, but if your company doesn't have a union, it's more than likely because of laws against forming unions. If that is not the case, then it is because the workers at your company didn't form a union. If the latter is the case, now might be a good time to do so. Assuming there are no laws against it.

[Goldstein1984]

30. And you make $10/hour instead of $20/hour because

unions have been broken to the point that they no longer do what they once could--establish a standard by which all hourly workers are paid.

When unions where plentiful and powerful, good employees always had the option of leaving their non-union employer and getting a well-paid union job. Thus, even non-union employers had to pay competitive wages to keep good employees.

Further, when unionization was a threat, employers would provide good pay and benefits to keep their employees from unionizing.

Because unions have been broken, employers, no employees, control the labor market. Everyone suffers.

[dana_b]

80. do you have to take a break after so many hours of work?

is there a minimum wage where you work? after forty hours is your company supposed to pay you overtime? Thank the unions.

Seriously - I underdtand how messed up it is to work for those wages. It's not living wage and the benefits are non existant but dont think that the unions are against you or aren't for the working class. Do some studying on the history of the unions in the U.S. It is amazing a they have done but unfortunately they are being phased out. The corporations are also getting the people (like you) who are angry about thier own situations to put the blame in the wrong direction.

Maybe instead of expecting the unions to reach out to every company (impossible), workers should be seeking them out.

[napoleon_in_rags]

140. I know unions have done a lot in the PAST, and aren't against me per say.

What I was saying last night is that at present, they aren't for me either. I'm talking about this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5941153.shtml
When unions are out there fighting for individual (not family) health insurance plans that cost $780 a month to not be taxed (in order to pay for health insurance for the poor), that tells me they have moved into a different universe from working class people who have either NO health insurance or a $200 a month plan. Which is fine, its middle class people fighting to protect themselves. Lord knows investment class people do the same. But the truth of the union history we celebrate is that those struggles were carried out by working class people against horrific conditions. That struggle eventually elevated those workers to the middle class status they currently enjoy, but then it stopped. Maybe it stopped because the investment class put the union movement in check, maybe it stopped because they were too comfortable and actually had something to risk, but it stopped. And the end result is what we see today: Unions as a dwindling largely middle class fixture.

Consider this, the 1950's, a time that had record union membership:

The 50's was also a time when the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker were the working class. There wasn't a separate "lower" working class like we have today. And that way, the 1950's way, is basically how it HAS to work. Either everybody has a sense of worth and dignity in what they do (reflected somewhat by economics) or nobody does. If only some people do, than free market economics will eventually eradicate the difference, and the vast majority of humanity will be exactly like me in a pretty short period of time. The reason jobs have been flying out of this country is precisely because of this. For instance we had a middle class vocation called "software programmer" and they got paid $30 an hour in this country. Then people came to realize that you can pay Indians $12 an hour for this and they would do it just as well. Writing code is like flipping burgers for them, just another job. And this is India, a country where the amount of people in the top 15 percentile of IQ is equal to the entire population of the US.

Maybe instead of expecting the unions to reach out to every company (impossible), workers should be seeking them out.

My point is that I'm not the one with the noose tightening around my neck, I'm already dead hanging from the proverbial tree. And I AM the future of the middle class. A few workers climbing their way up to union gigs with $780 a month individual health care plans won't change that. The only thing that will change that is a total cultural shift toward solidarity for ALL workers. And for those in the "upper" working class, that means sacrifice and outreach.

Peace

[dana_b]

143. I see what you are saying and

you make some excellent points. What I don't agree with is somehow "punishing" the union members for what they have. What I would prefer to see (as I'm sure most of us would) is for people who feel that they are "dead hanging from the proverbial tree" to be be raised up to more comfortable union class of worker. I think we want the same thing here.

The problem being, as you stated, that the unions are diminishing quickly and the working poor is growing. How can only 7% or so of workers really reach out and fight for all the others? Yes, they do have some political clout but not near as much as they used to. I think it has to come from people like us who are willing to put their necks on the line for each other to go out and say "hey unions! help us out here!!How do we organize?" My daughter and I have talked about this for her work. She works for Peets Coffee (non-unionized) and I told her that she would have to contact a union and talk with people in her store. there is no way the union will contact them as I believe it's illegal. I hope she works on it. Anyway - it's not an easy situation for you or any of us non-unionized folks.

peace to you too.

[napoleon_in_rags]

149. Well, I think its good to be talking about it for one thing.

It is an issue. A lot of people I know are in the dead end jobs. Everybody who takes them thinks of them as the temporary thing, until we get through school and the real one comes along or whatever. But I graduated from college in 2007, and along with many other from my class getting better jobs has been pretty difficult. I'm not sticking with my current company long term, but the possibility of ending up in something similar long term is very real. That's where you start wishing unions were more around.

I heard reporting on the issue of the Cadillac taxes today. They are stilling pressing the issue really hard, warning of not voting Dem in 2010 if those taxes are part, and that's what bothers me. Now I totally support the house bill, I think it makes more sense to tax the wealthy than the middle class, but not supporting Dems? On the other hand, I did hear a justification for why they are mad: Many of them bargained for lower salaries to get the benefits, and that's a deal that's already been made. So its like they are losing money they wouldn't have lost otherwise. That is a tough break.

[DisgustedInMN]

102. This is almost..

.. the same screed I thought I WOULDN'T hear from Democrats. This is almost word for word, the same shit line of reasoning posted on Teabagger and RW sites all over the net.

What the hell is wrong with some people? Do you always hand the knife to those that are going to slit your throat?

I DON'T GET IT!

:banghead:

[napoleon_in_rags]

141. ITs okay to hand the knife to those who would slit your throat...

...if you're already dead. (so to speak) If you want to see where I'm coming from read my response:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=117902&mesg_id=120153

[IndianaGreen]

108. It was because of the unions that we even have a middle class

Travel back in time to the way things were when union organizing was illegal.

[napoleon_in_rags]

142. I agree.

And I also agree that if I travel backwards in time I can see horrific working conditions. Workers united fighting them, eventually creating the middle class. The problem is that traveling backwards through time is the ONLY way to see the truly poor workers united. And soon it will be the case that traveling backwards through time is the only way to see the middle class.

If you are interested in my point of view, read this response:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=117902&mesg_id=120153

[spoony]

117. What bullshit from start to finish

Nice buying the divide and conquer line of your masters.

[amborin]

148. +100000

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Where are all the recs?

[last1standing]

12. The same place as DU's soul.

n/t

[EFerrari]

15. Here's one.

[Starry Messenger]

20. Here's another one. n/t

[Odin2005]

134. The DLC's evil clowns are unrec'ing like nuts.

[ProSense]

21. On the free choice amendment, who was right

Wyden or the unions?

[last1standing]

26. Candiate Obama.

President Obama hasn't been saying too much about it lately.

[ProSense]

27. Dodging the question, huh? n/t

[last1standing]

32. You really do hate unions, don't you?

Just to answer you though, the Unions had it right, 100% right.


Now you tell me, who had it right, Candidate Obama or the republican party?

[ProSense]

35. Your hyperbole is exposing your desperation.

And you're still dodging the question.

[last1standing]

38. LOL! How was saying "The Unions had it right. 100%" dodging the question?

It's *almost* like you're paid to spew this bullshit. I say *almost* because I can't imagine anyone wasting their money on someone who posts suck lousy propaganda.

[TheKentuckian]

54. In my opinion Wyden because freeing EVERYONE from the employer based system

resets the entire market not just a very isolated segment as you've been arguing. I also can ask the unions to take a hit to improve the well being of all workers which the free choice amendment would do.

Its cool that you're trying to use a logic string but you're talking apples and oranges at least. Free choice would be a massive across the board reform that lifts union and non-union alike. Also, the hit would be just part of the price of liberating the people in general, an inherent thing. This tax is targeted and any number of alternatives could be designed, hell there is one that raises much more money in the House bill.

This is a pure situation of choosing winners and losers and Obama has decided that the rich, corporate profits, and employers aren't going to take the hit.

It would pretty dishonest to push this tact, the logic will not hold under much scrutiny. Making things better for all workers is not the same as targeting unions because you are too beholden to corporate interests and the status quo to do anything else about revenue and cost containment.

[michaz]

24. Ya know, my husband opted years ago to go to college and be a teacher in NYS.

He worked hard and paid back student loans and also paid for college with what little bit he got because his parents died early in life and he got some aid because of that. Should he apologize because he decided to do something with his life that would lead to a NYS teachers union job? I sure thing not. He worked hard and educated many peoples children and did a damn good job at it! He and our family deserve what he got for himself and for our family which included 4 children and a grandchild we had custody of. At some point one has to realize that we all had choices and he choice this one. Bashing unions is not always the thing to do. Unions do work hard for their people and I think that is a positive, not a negative. I for one, am damn sick of all the union bashing. Many of these unions work hard for their people and I am grateful they do. Too bad other companies don't work this hard for their people.

[last1standing]

29. That should be an OP.

Your husband's story isn't unique, it's the same one a few million union workers could tell, but it need to be heard by those who have no idea what Union mean to a lot of folks.

[Oldtimeralso]

33. K & R and proud to help union solidarity n/t

[Goldstein1984]

34. It should be considered a democratic axiom:

Union labor before politicians.

Being democratic and anti-union requires doublethink.

[last1standing]

36. This isn't your father's Democratic Party!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x117856

[Goldstein1984]

39. My father was a Republican

He beat the hell out of me for sneaking out the window of our double-wide and joining Cesar Chavez's people to help make sure thousands of acres of tomatoes and lettuce rotted in the the fields around Stockton, California.

But I will say this isn't the Democratic Party that I joined in 1974. That was the party of anti-war protests, union labor, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Not the party of imperialism, trickledown economics, and free trade.

[last1standing]

42. LOL! I hope the marks healed.

And thanks for fighting the good fight while many of us were still in diapers.

[Goldstein1984]

44. I have to plead self-interest

When I was 12, I had a beautiful blond cousin with an equally beautiful brunette friend, both 16, and I used to tag along with them to anti-war protests. My motives became more pure as time passed.

[last1standing]

46. There's no intent on earth more pure than that. :-D

n/t

[spoony]

118. Thanks to the New Democrats

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=119115&mesg_id=119115

[SpartanDem]

47. I stand with unions when they're right

Unions helped watered down an admendment by Ron Wyden that would've allowed everyone to opt out employers coverage if they didn't like it and go to the exchnage. Persoanlly, I'd much rather think for myself than stand with anyone blindly thanks to unions this bill isn't as good as it could've been.

To understand the Free Choice Act, you need to understand that the exchanges are currently closed to businesses over 100 employees. In many states, they'll be closed to businesses over 50 employees (the Finance Committee's bill lets states choose their threshold, either 50 or 100). And in all states, they're closed to individuals who are offered "affordable" coverage by their employer. If I don't like the insurance The Washington Post is offering, or I feel I can get a better deal on the exchange, I am simply not allowed to go use the new network and take my pick from the many plans offered.

But it turns out not to mean that. The proposal was doomed by the joint opposition of businesses and labor. Businesses didn't like it because they lose control over their employees' health benefits. Labor groups didn't like it because they lose control over their members' health benefits. That's not an entirely selfish concern: It is easier to bargain on behalf of your workers or members if they have no other options, and thus are guaranteed customers for the insurer. But it is a short-sighted concern. It means the protection and preservation of a system where employers offer us one or two health-care choices,

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_status_quo_wins_in_health-.html

Wyden's effort was bitterly opposed by unions, which historically have been friendly to Oregon's senior senator. Labor officials feared that Wyden's approach would weaken the bond between workers and the employers who give them health coverage.

The breach was highlighted in May when three major unions underwrote a $60,000 ad campaign in Portland and Eugene that criticized Wyden.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/or/2009/39/articles/wyden_withdraws_amendment_senate_panel_hashes.html

[last1standing]

48. Wyden was wrong.

That amendment would have hurt the Unions and their workers by creating yet another chink in their already tattered armor. And I don't look to Ezra Klein as a decent source for information. He has proved himself to be little more than the next Steno Sue.

[SpartanDem]

51. You're ok forcing people to stay with employer coverage

even if they don't like it? and against a public option for everybody, because don't forget that the public option was on the exchange. Wyden's amendment would've opened it to everyone.

[last1standing]

52. That was ONE part of what the amendment would have done.

The Unions were right to oppose it. It would have further decimated the Unions that built the middle-class in this country.

[SpartanDem]

53. How would've it decimated unions?

[last1standing]

55. Unions get the benefits they do by collective bargaining.

If you take away one of the largest bargaining chips you further decimate them.

But I'm not going to argue this. I stand by the Unions who built the middle-class and dragged the rest of the country along for a very prosperous ride. If you don't, then we are not on the same side.

[levander]

57. Their bargaining chip to determine what your health insurance will be?

That's central to the union's cause?

What if you don't like the health insurance plan, think it's more than you need and would like to get a cheaper one off the exchange?

[last1standing]

58. Then you lessen your Union's ability to bargain with your employer.

The entire point of a Union is collective bargaining. If you take that away you render them, and yourself, impotent.

[levander]

61. If the bill mandated that all health insurance costs be added to employees salaries....

Would that be good enough for you?

Or, it's important that you get your health care from your employer so the union can negotiate it?

[last1standing]

63. Its important that employers aren't able to trick employees into leaving Union benefits.

Once that starts it weakens the Union which is exactly what the employer wants. Once the Union is too weak to fight, the employer can start "altering" agreements. That would have been the end result of Wyden's plan.

[levander]

65. So, you want the entire nation...

to do health care on the employer-based system, whether it is advantageous to the nation or not, simply because it benefits unions?

I question whether or not employer-based health insurance is necessary to maintain power by unions, but I'm including that assumption in that statement because it's yours. I'm trying to follow your reasoning.

[last1standing]

71. Sorry, that was the last chance for you to purposely *misread* what I posted.

If you don't like progressive philosophy then just admit it. If you don't support Unions, say so. Changing my words around and implying meanings for me that I never stated doesn't make you look good.

[levander]

73. No, I was trying to understand...

But apparently you just want to throw out name-calling rather than try to explain what you mean...

[SpartanDem]

76. If they're getting increase wages instead of employer health care

how are their benefits reduced?

[last1standing]

79. Last time. It lessens the Union's ability to negotiate for better collective rates.

Which leads to more people opting out, which leads to less support for the Union, which leads to Union breaking, which leads to lower salaries, benefits and safety standard for ALL workers, Unionized or not.

Unless health care is nationalized there is a need for Unions to be able to collectively bargain with the largest numbers possible. Letting individuals opt out lessens bargaining power. It seems you understand this well enough when Obama talks about mandates.

[SpartanDem]

82. But a national exchange open to everyone would accomplish the same thing

it would be better since you'd have many more to pool.

[last1standing]

84. Out of the context of our discussion I'd agree.

But as it stands, many Unions have had to negotiate healthcare for their employees as one collective. To remove this (unless you remove it for everyone as with a universal, single-payer plan) lessens the Union's collective bargaining power which leads to decline for everyone.

Wyden was proposing this amendment in a vacuum. On its face it sounded good but in the context of bargaining power it wasn't.

Seriously, that is the best I can give you. If you don't agree then we're just going to go in circles.

[flyarm]

83. Prez of United Steelworkers scoffs at those who say wages will go up

Prez of United Steelworkers scoffs at those who say wages will go up

Sun Jan-10-10 02:24 AM

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, scoffed at arguments that by restraining health costs, the tax would lead to higher wages

“The people who are promoting this tax say companies will make up for this with higher wages,” Mr. Gerard said. “These people who say that have never been at the bargaining table. It doesn’t work that way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html...

[SpartanDem]

85. If they can negoitate more benefits then they can ask for more money

[last1standing]

89. How do they do that with over 10% official unemployment?

It's over 15% in real terms.

How does a Union go to the bargaining table and demand higher pay from GM or Ford in Michigan where unemployment is 15% officially and over 25% in Detroit? Just answer that question. Please.

Because if you have the answer you're smarter than anyone else I've ever heard speak on the subject.

[SpartanDem]

90. You're not asking for higher pay

you're asking that they exchange benefits for wages and appropriate increases to keep up with cost. They're should be no net cost to the company they're just going to pay you directly.

[last1standing]

91. Once the contract is broken it must be renegotiated.

In this economic climate, there in no chance that corporations aren't going to take advantage of that fact. Their only loyalty is to the stockholder and the stockholders demand profits at all costs.

[flyarm]

95. Prez of United Steelworkers scoffs at those who say wages will go up

Prez of United Steelworkers scoffs at those who say wages will go up

Sun Jan-10-10 02:24 AM

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, scoffed at arguments that by restraining health costs, the tax would lead to higher wages

“The people who are promoting this tax say companies will make up for this with higher wages,” Mr. Gerard said. “These people who say that have never been at the bargaining table. It doesn’t work that way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html...

[flyarm]

93. you are delusional..My airline let us go 9 years without a new contract

and it was only negotiated and ratified in July in 2001..and when we voted to strike..bushy came up with a law to replace us with scabs or federally fine us ...from the 1800's

so in this economy..how do you think renegotiations would work out for unions????????

get fucking real!

[Dr.Phool]

146. Bingo!

The airlines were governed by the Railway Labor Act, just like my railroad was.

We went 9 years without an agreement. I was on the bargaining committee and witnessed firsthand the shit they pull.

Our Federal Mediator was the daughter of Bush Sr's Secretary of Interior. She did everything in her power to stymie an agreement. One guy who was representing the workers in the car shop said, "I'll prove to you that they don't want an agreement." He called the Mediator into our conference and said "I'll take their last offer for those guys in the car repair shop". She asked "Including Section 13"? Which was a particularly repugnant section of the company's proposal. He said "Yes, including Section 13".

She came back 10 minutes later, and said "It's no longer available". We asked "Why not, it was available 15 minutes ago." She said I don't know, but it's not. We then demanded for her to give a proffer of arbitration, and declare negotiations at an impasse. A step that must be offered. If either side rejects it, we are then on the clock for a 45 day cool down period, after which we can go on strike.

She refused, and said she had to go back to Washington for more consultations with the board.

This shit went on for nine years.

[SpartanDem]

Unions in countries that don't tie employment to health care aren't weak

health care isn't only bargaining chip they hold. You're not going argue this? Are you afraid to admit that they just might be wrong about an issue?

[last1standing]

66. Apples and oranges. Other countries have real healthcare not profit driven crap.

As health care has continued to escalate far beyond inflation, Unions have had to negotiate for real insurance at the expense of wages and other benefits. Now, it's practically all they get. Wyden's plan would have removed one of the last remaining bargaining chips they held.

Are you afraid to discuss politics on parity? Do you realize it was Unions in those other countries that fought for and gained universal healthcare?

[levander]

68. But, you just said..

Unions have had to negotiate for real insurance at the expense of wages and other benefits.

You just said that you wouldn't accept a direct trade where they no longer provide health insurance, but add what they were paying in health insurance to employee salaries.

So, it's not really about the past negotiations for benefits in lieu of wages, is it?

[last1standing]

70. You honestly have no clue about collective negotiations, do you?

Unless the healthcare is provided by the government for ALL citizens, breaking the collective bargaining power of the Unions only creates a backward slide into individual thralldom. It's that whole "United we Stand" thing.

[levander]

72. Your logic doesn't follow man...

So, Unions don't have to necessarily be the bargaining power for your health insurance. But, there's only one case where that's so. It's in the one case where the government provides your health care.

You're just being an ideologue. You're not looking at realities. If it's true that unions don't necessarily have to bargain with employers for health care to avoid "chinks in their armor", then they don't have to.

I'm realizing how pointless this is because I'm arguing with an ideologue. You want one of two things apparently and that's all you're willing to look at. And, if you don't get the first you just say the second is the only way not to hurt the first. When in reality, there are a hundred ways to solve this problem. And, just because those other ways aren't the second, doesn't mean unions will be hurt.

If unions don't negotiate health care, then whether or not the government's the one who provides it has no causal relationship on union power and you know this. Even if you're not willing to admit it.

[last1standing]

74. I tried to discuss this in good faith but you keep posting crap I never said.

You support Union busting. Plain and simple. Sick that there are so many of you here.

[levander]

111. Yeah, right

Just more name-calling..

[Odin2005]

135. I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

Or are a troll.

[levander]

56. How would letting workers be able to choose their health insurance. hurt unions?

You can support unions without backing every single move they make. Especially one that seems as outlandish as their requirement that the entire nation be required to use the out-dated and ineffective employer based health insurance system, simply because it benefits them.

But, I gotta know. How would letting employees opt-out of their employers health care plan and use the money for one of their choosing, how would that hurt the unions?

[last1standing]

60. Answered above. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

87. I generally agree with you on this but you're going too far, imo.

Unions aren't so important as to be more important than all workers. You cannot really mean to suggest it is in the interests of most Americans or workers in general to be tied up to an employer based system.

I might be able to stretch to the point where I could at least see your thinking even if I still disagreed if I thought we we're going to be able to pass card check or do something that would give all workers a chance to unionize but thats not likely to happen and it is immoral to hold the entire nation from a real and crucial advancement for one and all to in effect preserve a vague feeling of special union pull. That ain't right and its not really pro-working people.

It doesn't make sense to follow unquestioningly. If unions were against renewable energy or for private prisons for internal reasons I'd have no problem telling them to suck it because they like any other group cannot be put ahead of the people.

[last1standing]

92. As I stated elsewhere, Wyden's plan was only good in a vacuum.

It does nobody in the working classes to remove collective healthcare bargaining power from the Unions unless ALL healthcare is nationalized. So long as we continue with an employer based profit driven system, we need Unions to bargain better rates based on collective power. Wyden's plan didn't take this into account.

[TheKentuckian]

97. The purpose was to eliminate employer based care

by getting people eligible for the exchange with their tax break. Do you really think that divided unions with such a small footprint could get better rates to the point that system wide downward price pressure would apply? Not likely to the point that a huge pool of people with Federal negotiation power would.

I'm proud to support unions and workers but lets not make unions such a sacred cow that logic goes out the window. Again, if we were at 30% union the point might be valid but at 4% or whatever you have a much harder case to make. Unions are hamstrung and rather toothless until they can grow membership again and unfortuanately the Democrats aren't in the ballpark of helping.

[last1standing]

98. We'll have to disagree on this and accept that we agree overall on Unions.

Unions are not very powerful compared with earlier generations but they do still account for millions of Americans throughout the country. That's not such a small footprint.

But like I said, overall we agree. If we agreed on everything there'd be no point in talking.

[flyarm]

86. very clearly (and with more patience than i would have ) explained to you over and over again

you just

#1. don't want to understand

or

#2. have some warped agenda!

[flying rabbit]

99. no shit

my head hurts.

[TheKentuckian]

64. I stand with workers union or not over any politician

and I support first the people of my nation.

This tax isn't good for the people at large, workers, and it sucks ass for unions. Who's it good for? The wealthy as it keeps them from having to actually do shit for the country even as they bleed it dry.

Its also good for shameful politicians who are too craven, bought off, or just plain stuck on Reaganomics that are expected to have some form of cost containment and have to raise some revenues without touching a single bauble from the dragon's hoard so they've elected to screw the working class of the country and pit us at one another's throats over it by turning 50k into "rich" to the folks making minimal wages, while they remain out of sight and out of mind and pad their purses on us.

Divide and conquer tactics again and this time the Democrats are doing it and falling for it.

[last1standing]

96. Right now it looks like many DUers support politicians over Unions and workers.

At least I have to assume that's what they mean when they unrec this thread.

Amazing what this party has turned into over the last couple of years. Just remember folks, if you don't support the Unions you'll lose the Democrats #1 activist network. You won't be able to elect a Democrat as dogcatcher without them.

[DisgustedInMN]

100. It seems surreal to me..

.. that I come to a supposed "home" for Democrats and find that my union brothers and sisters are being attacked by people PRETENDING to be Democrats, and it goes unabated by the people running the site.

If you hate unions and union members, you sure as fuck aren't a REAL Democrat and I sure as fuck hope you don't expect any respect from me.

[QC]

101. +1

[madmom]

103. I think you've said it all, thank you! Unions are only as strong as their members, BE STRONG!

[chimpymustgo]

104. K&R.

[snot]

105. The fight shouldn't be

among middle and lower-class factions, all of whom should be unionized.

We shouldn't be fighting about whether what's left of the middle-class should be taxed.

We should be demanding that People with billions be taxed instead.

[senseandsensibility]

106. I stand with the unions

and the fact that everyone on this board does not is surreal.

[last1standing]

107. It's almost like the party we knew has been overtaken with repubs.

Real Democrats know how important Unions have been to this country.

[cui bono]

110. I think it has.

The whole political scene has moved over to the right on the political spectrum. So the real left gets no voice at all while the extreme right wing lunatics get on TV every day.

This board is no longer Democratic in its values and no longer underground in that it's overrun with mainstream centrists.

Right wing Dems would have been Repubs a couple of decades ago. Now they "fit in" as Dems, to our country's demise.

[last1standing]

112. There's also another political mass.

There's a mass of people who have no real political persuasion or philosophy, they just like the way someone looks or talks so they follow them blindly in their adoration. Using our fine president as an example, when he said he was against mandates in the primaries these people blanketed DU about how unAmerican mandates were and how they would never accept them. When Obama has said he's for them after taking our votes, they didn't have to blink twice before spamming the site with pro-mandate threads and calling anyone who wasn't for them names.

Now that our "Democratic" president is having some fun Union busting, they feel compelled to advocate for the same.

[onestepforward]

109. K&R

[Vidar]

113. I entirely agree.

[MichiganVote]

121. Solidarity

[last1standing]

124. Hell YES!

United we Stand, my friend.

[MichiganVote]

130. Yup. Can't trust the politicians that's for sure. Bunch of bozo's.

[Ildem09]

126. damn skippy

If you do not support Unions, then GTFO of the Democratic Party. Labor Built this party, on the backs of those brave men and women in the 20's and 30's that sat down in Michigan and demanded better, those brave soles at Haymarket in Chicago. through their hard work, sweat, blood and tears, Those folks that brought you things like the weekend, the 40 hour work week, OSHA, child labor laws, Min wage, etc etc. They have stood firm at the core of the Democratic party

[last1standing]

127. Don't forget the coal miners in WV and KY.

And yes, they built this party and this country. It is the height of ingratitude to sit in a comfy home on one of your days off or paid holiday and attack Unions.

[pleah]

128. K&R

[senseandsensibility]

129. kick

:kick:

[last1standing]

131. Thanks. I would have thought Democrats supported Unions more than I'm seeing.

I guess that was before Obama decided they aren't worth supporting.

[senseandsensibility]

145. Thanks for all the great thread

Don't be disappointed. You've got some very good responses. Let's keep this kicked.

[Odin2005]

132. Anyone who attacks unions is no Democrats and is no Liberal. Period.

[hay rick]

136. K&R

[winyanstaz]

137. me too :) Unions are the reason we have a middle class....

sure wasnt because of trickle down.

[liberation]

138. I couldn't agree more. However I am getting a kick out of the libertarians pretending to be Dems

Which these sort of threads tend to be good for, esp. since the stripes show in technicolor for those who are too dumb to understand that at their low wage level... collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool they have to defend their interests.

I don't think if it is just stupidity, or it is compounded by people who are so greedy, shortsighted, and just plain antisocial... who think it makes perfect sense to blame their bad employment/earning position on those workers which fought for a decent living standards for their contracts, or that they somehow are going to win the lottery any day now, so they better not rock the boat since they are going to be part of the elite soon.

Once again, it is all part of dividing and conquering. And we all fall for it like idiots.


*sigh* At this point I am willing to think that there may be a revolution in this country, but it will be a new type of revolution... a "revolutionary revolution" which I am sure some marketing wizard will use to describe it. The first revolution in history involving the people at the bottom rise to defend the interests of those at the top. History will record this as the incident which signified the unequivocal devolution of our species.

EDIT to add: People who are hellbent in sinking unions will get a rude awakening, next time they use all those profits to fly to their new vacation home in the tropics. I hope they get a nice surprise when they board the new planes the airlines bought to replace the union-made Airbus and Boeing (to maximize profits, they'll understand). I sure won't be willing to risk life and limb on board the new El Airplano Loco made by underage kids in Ensenada or the new Red Winged Glorious Patriotic Dragon Model 82 (the same as the atomic number for lead, little know fact... that is not a coincidence) single use plane.

[TheKentuckian]

144. Notice the lack of corporatist toadies and sympathizers nor the social totalitarians checking

in on this one.

I bet you could go through the platform and almost none of them would pick a single damn plank over a pol or a party.

[Dr.Phool]

147. Kick and rec.