Does Obama SUPPORT Labor Unions in the United States?

[DontTreadOnMe]

Can someone post some facts to show me where he has enacted legislation that supports Labor Unions!

I just don't believe ANYTHING Obama says anymore...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. How do Presidents enact legislation?

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Ask Shrub he did it 5 times a term. Labor Day he was , Hiring Wall street

showed he wasn't.

[DontTreadOnMe]

12. When they SIGN the actual Bill!

It is the 3rd branch, afterall...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. But the bill has to be passed, first.

The only thing a president can do with legislation is either sign it or veto it.

[DontTreadOnMe]

17. So you are telling me that the President cannot suggest new Bills

the the leaders in his own Party? You are implying that the only power the President has is to "just sign" Bills into law?

No wonder Obama is so weak, he has people like you advising him...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Woo hoo! I'm a Presidential advisor!

Must've happened when I wasn't looking.

Actually, I'm just a former constitutional history instructor, so what would I know? Of course it's true that the president's staff can draft proposed legislation, and the president can recommend its passage. Happens all the time. But the president's constitutional power is limited to signing or vetoing bills that Congress has passed. This is Civics 101. You should have learned this in middle school.

"Article I. Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

"Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."

Article II, Sections 2 and 3, set out the powers of the president:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

That's it. That's what the Constitution says a president can do. That's a lot of power, but it doesn't include the power to legislate.

[DontTreadOnMe]

28. Your own statemnt indicates that you are wrong!

"Of course it's true that the president's staff can draft proposed legislation, and the president can recommend its passage. Happens all the time."

WTF! You spent many paragraphs to explain that the President can ONLY sign a Bill... like he has NO INFLUENCE on what Bills are sent from his own Party...


This is COMMON SENSE 101... you must have missed that course.

So who is IN CHARGE of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?

After you answer the question, then ask yourself who is responsible for
all Democratic Bills proposed in the House or the Senate.

If a President does not control the agenda his own Senate and House Leaders... then he is a WEAK LEADER!

That lesson can be found in Presidential Politics 101.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. I didn't say he had no influence. I said he didn't have constitutional power.

In fact, the president is obligated to make recommendations to congress. But there's another principle called separation of powers, which means that the three branches of government have defined powers and may not impinge on the others. When Bush was trying to step over that line everybody was throwing fits. But now people are complaining that our guy isn't doing it enough.

Being the leader of a political party doesn't give the president the constitutional authority to take on any functions of the legislative branch.

[Tx4obama]

25. The President 'enacts legislation' WHEN he SIGNS the bill that Congress has passed. n/t

[Marrah_G]

43. Presidents really can't do anything

They are just there to give speeches and look good in photo shoots.

[dennis4868]

2. congress passes the laws....

that part of my problem with DU...people here think Obama is congress and the WH all wrapped up in one like a king...WTF?

[orpupilofnature57]

7. WTF ? They are wrapped when the Congress dictates policies and Laws..

to the Commander & Chief ,the only person with Veto power ,Scarring US while explaining Bending over to the NWO is more like a senator or congressman,yes.

[DontTreadOnMe]

13. The President is the LEADEr of the Dem Party

You THINK he might have some meetings with the Dem leaders in the HOUSE and SENATE a to WHAT KIND OF LAWS they should propose.

It is AMAZING that there are people here on DU that think the President just waits around until a Bill comes across his desk...

[Avalux]

27. Is there some sort of method to your selective capitalizaton?

Just wondering.

[dennis4868]

4. this is the latest thing he has done for unions

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/30/bloomberg1376-LQRCQ607SXKX01-4NPPL7C76J9A1L4Q8AFQMBDTLS.DTL

OF COURSE THIS WENT IGNORED HERE :-(

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Did you miss Civics 101? The snarky question might have been valid,

until your "enacted legislation" line. :rofl:

[Tx4obama]

10. Actually the word 'enacted' can be used.

ENACTED
A bill is enacted when the bill becomes a law, i.e. signed by the Governor and takes effect.

President Obama does 'sign bills' - then the bill is enacted into law.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. But where does legislation begin? This was just more wholesale Obama bashing...

and the o.p.'s tenuous grasp of the legislative process is on full display, despite the snark. Perhaps he/she should rephrase the question in order to be taken seriously? :shrug:

[Tx4obama]

48. I guess I did not read the OP that way. It was about 'enactment'

It would have been different if the OP had asked 'what legislation did Obama introduce' or 'create' or 'compose' but I didn't see any of that up in the OP.

I am not defending anyone - just noting that only the word 'enacted' was used.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Come on T. You and I both know the o.p.'s intent. "Legislation" is introduced in the "Legislature"

And we both know the White House ain't the Legislature. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

6. ...

NLRB issues three decisions, two of which overturn Bush-era decisions
The NLRB has issued three more rulings following last week's announcement that employers would be required to notify workers of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Two of Tuesday's rulings overturn Bush-era NLRB rulings, both having to do with union decertifications.
more....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012141/-NLRB-issues-three-decisions,-two-of-which-overturn-Bush-era-decisions


Labor Board Eases Path To Unions For Health Care Workers
08/30/11
WASHINGTON -- With the departure of the chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board this past weekend, the board has been issuing a slew of last-minute rulings destined to please labor groups while irritating business interests and anti-union Republicans. Among the latest: a ruling made public on Tuesday that overturns a Bush-era decision and will likely make it easier for health care workers to unionize.

In the case, known as Specialty Healthcare, the board ruled that a group of nursing assistants at a facility in Mobile, Ala., could form their own bargaining unit without other types of nursing home staff, from maintenance workers to dietary aides. It's a decision that could greatly simplify the unionization process and, as HuffPost has previously reported, could have a huge impact on the growing and largely non-unionized nursing home industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/labor-board-unions-health-care-workers_n_942485.html


NLRB Proposes Removing ‘Unnecessary Barriers’ to Union Votes
06/22/11
Companies would have less time and opportunity to block unions under a proposed U.S. rule that would speed voting in labor elections.

The proposed rule issued today by the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that investigates unfair labor practices, would bring changes sought by unions, such as faster hearing deadlines and streamlined procedures.

The push for quicker elections is a victory for unions after defeats at the hands of Republican governors seeking to curb public-employee unions. It’s also a sign of the NLRB’s pro- labor bent since President Barack Obama’s appointees have become a majority, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.treasuryandrisk.com/2011/06/22/nlrb-proposes-removing-unnecessary-barriers-to-uni


How the Obama administration is Using Executive Power to Support Union Goals:What The NLRB’s Recent Complaint Reveals
04/25/11
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/04/25/how-the-obama-administration-is-using-executive-power-to-support-union-goalswhat-the-nlrbs-recent-complaint-reveals/?singlepage=true



Screeners Under Obama May Give Federal Unions Biggest Vote Win in Years
03/09/11
A collective-bargaining vote by airport security workers that starts today may give federal employee groups their biggest victory in years, even as public workers in some states struggle to keep their union status.

The country’s two largest federal-employee unions are competing to represent the 44,000 screeners who can cast their ballots through April 19. The effort, which Senate Republicans failed to stop last month, may raise Transportation Security Administration costs if workers push through changes such as increased staffing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/screeners-under-obama-may-give-federal-unions-main-win-in-years.html

Obama Gives Unions A Big Victory In Unionizing Air Travel Workers
05/11/10
WASHINGTON (AP) — Labor unions will have an easier time organizing workers at airline and railroad companies after the Obama administration on Monday changed a 76-year-old rule on union elections.

The change is a victory for unions that have struggled to reverse years of decline in membership. And it’s the most significant initiative so far in a string of White House moves intended to help organized labor.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama-gives-unions-a-big-victory-in-unionizing-air-travel-workers




WHILE THE OPPOSITION DOES ITS THING!

Bill Introduced to Reverse President Obama's Executive Order on Project Labor Agreements
http://www.laborrelationstoday.com/2011/02/articles/executive-orders/bill-introduced-to-reverse-president-obamas-executive-order-on-project-labor-agreements

[polmaven]

16. Thanks, FrenchieCat...

I was just getting ready to look for that...You posted it before, - a couple of times, IIRC - but it is so hard to see with blinders on.

[FrenchieCat]

22. It will be in my Journal, if you ever need it.....

or other things that I post that are factual and verifiable.

It's under the "This "I'm angry as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" suicide Brigade" heading....
:hi:

[JoePhilly]

23. Wonder if the OP will respond ... I doubt it ... hope I am wrong.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. No, he hates them....

...Which is why, for example, he either fails to fill NRLB vacancies, never mind a recess appointment, or fills them with corporatist shills.

I think a former AFL-CIO and SEIU lawyer falls into that category, don't you?

Or not as the case may be.

[FrenchieCat]

9. You link is broken.......

[Tx4obama]

11. Here's the direct link

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKr_AXeeC82k

[FrenchieCat]

14. Thanks!

[Skittles]

19. he does not have their back, no

not at ALL

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightGardener]

21. I have some facts for YOU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1888764&mesg_id=1888764

[FrenchieCat]

24. and so do I!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=764625&mesg_id=764640

[Avalux]

26. Errr......presidents don't enact legislation. n/t

[DontTreadOnMe]

29. errr.. the President ENACTS a Bill, when he signs it.

Why is there so much confusion here about the power of the Executive Branch of the United States government?
As in, how much SHOULD the President influence the writing of a Bill BEFORE is is voted on - in the House!

Bills originate in the House, then go to the Senate, then to the President.

Do you think there is NO INPUT from the President BEFORE the BILL originates in the House?

[Avalux]

31. So then say he makes a bill become law by signing it.

He certainly doesn't write legislation and can give input but that doesn't mean it will be taken. Never is with a Republican-controlled House.

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. He has been silent for 3 years when it comes to the roll back ...

...of labor rights throughout the US (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc).

He was absent during the Wisconsin fight. And, his voice would have helped.

His speech is three years too late. Actions speak louder than words. And his words are hollow.

[boppers]

33. If by "silent" and "absent" you mean something other than "silent" and "absent", sure.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49845.html

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. you may want to re-read your article.

He did not say one word regarding the recall efforts. He was silent. His statement was luke-warm so as to stay right smack in the middle. He only picks a side when he is on the campaign trail.

[boppers]

36. Goalposts aren't supposed to have ambulatory legs.

First it was "silent when it comes to the roll back of labor rights", and "absent during the Wisconsin fight."....

Now, it's "regarding the recall efforts", and "His statement was luke-warm".....

:shrug:

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. really?

"lukewarm" is absent. "Lukewarm" is mushy. It is appeasement. He did not support the WI labor re-election. He could have made a speech, like the ones he and the VP made today.

It is hard to listen to them today knowing that what they say is not what they do.

And it makes me very sad. We are stuck. We are stuck with the stupid, dangerous right wing fanatics, or Obama who has time and again dismissed and ridiculed us on the left while attempting to gain the favor of the right wing fanatics who would rather destroy the country than allow him to succeed at all.

He squandered his mandate.

[boppers]

42. Hilarious.

Also, fails to address the issues debated, and tries to redirect.

Was he "silent" and "absent" or not?

If a pot is full of lukewarm water, is that water "absent"?

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. you are missing the point

shameful

[SpartanDem]

35. Actions like pro labor appointments to the NLRB?

[krawhitham]

37. Ask the UAW if he has done anything for them

[LatteLibertine]

38. he had

a wonderful opportunity with the situation in Wisconsin and...

[Jakes Progress]

39. Don't you just love all the ardent supporters

who argue that it doesn't make any difference who is in the white house? I mean, if the president can't actually do anything as they suggest, why care who wins?

That's their argument. Not mine.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Do you have an argument for the links I posted.....

or is "Not comment" more your style on those?

[Jakes Progress]

47. Ah, Frenchie. Are you hunting me again?

I wasn't addressing you. I wasn't even referring to any of your posts on this thread, but you felt the need to reach out anyway. That's so cute.

Okay. If you want to discuss, just tell me what you are talking about. I didn't reply to anything you said even though it seems to have rankled you. So if you would just try to read over the thread and then let me know what you are referring to, I will respond.

But, of course, fairness would indicate that you should actually respond to my post instead of just dropping in something that was crossing your mind. So if you respond to my post, the substance of my post that is, I will then be happy to address your interest in my opinions about whatever it is you have to say. I would hope that in this exchange you would actually respond to questions that I might ask just as you request my response to you offerings. In the past, you have tended to ignore those questions I asked that you didn't have any real answers for. You used a sort of "No Comment" by default.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Who said that? Prove it. Share the quotes w/links to "all" you allege are saying what you claim?

[Jakes Progress]

51. The "Prove It' Kid pops us again.

Aren't you following this thread. If you have trouble following the posts above, I can point them out to you. You really should be able to read forum threads before you post stuff, but If you need I can hand hold you to them. I was referring to the posts that proclaim how a president can't enact, how a president must wait on congress to do anything. Now my assumption is that these posters don't know much about government in the United States and are not very aware that, historically, presidents have launched legislative initiatives many times. Sure congress must have the legislation introduced, but who says that legislation has to always be written by corporations and insurance companies and such? (See the recent Health Care fiasco)

See the problem is that Obama is a sidelines kind of guy. He can do that and he can hide behind the vociferous bleatings from his enablers that he just has no powers. It's just that most of us thought he would be a more hands on, a more involved, a more progressive mover and shaker in Washington. The funny thing is that if he were the firebrand fighter that most of us want, the ones who defend his inaction and timidity as the natural state of the office would do an about face and cheer his tough and forthright nature. That's the quandary. Were he to gumption up, he would still have all his current rabid believers because to them, he can never be wrong. But he would also gain the support and backing of millions of other Democrats who are currently unhappy that the man we elected is cruising through his administration.

I believe his overly solicitous behavior toward the totally nasty republicans is costing him support. And it certainly isn't a strategy that is yielding any substantial progressive movement.

[ClarkUSA]

52. The Red Herring Kid replies with not a shred of evidence for his claims again.

[Jakes Progress]

53. Okay. If you would rather be called the Red Herring Kid.

S'okay with me. But if we are to continue, you need to tell me if you need help finding those posts above. I will do it if you tell me you haven't read the thread.

Then you could always comment on my careful explanation of my thesis.

Or you could just keep popping off.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Lame dodge. Again, where is the proof for your claim? Here's what you said -->

"Don't you just love all the ardent supporters who argue that it doesn't make any difference who is in the white house? I mean, if the president can't actually do anything as they suggest, why care who wins?

That's their argument. Not mine."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=764625&mesg_id=764951

Share the quotes w/links to "all" you allege are saying what you claim. I suspect you have nothing to back up your false narrative, given how hard you're trying to avoid answering my queries. No surprise there.

[Jakes Progress]

55. Poor Reading. But I can help you with that. Here is what I said.

"I was referring to the posts that proclaim how a president can't enact, how a president must wait on congress to do anything. Now my assumption is that these posters don't know much about government in the United States and are not very aware that, historically, presidents have launched legislative initiatives many times. Sure congress must have the legislation introduced, but who says that legislation has to always be written by corporations and insurance companies and such? (See the recent Health Care fiasco) "

Then I went on to try to actually have a discussion. Silly me. See. My original post was to another person. You wanted to join the conversation, so I explained myself carefully so that you could more easily join in with more than a squeaky "prove it" over and over. To no avail though. You don't want to address the issue of the president's lame use of power. You just look for silly little points that will make you one of Obama's most favoritist persons.

I wasn't trying to avoid answering your question. I was trying to involve you in a more meaningful conversation on the subject. I know. I know. That was dumb. You didn't want to engage. You just want to play snark games so that Obama will call you up and talk to you all night and tell you how much he likes you. For that kind of exchange try posts #2, #49, and # 26. Those are examples of the common dodge that the enablers use to excuse Obama's lack of legislative prowess, the old "But presidents don't do legislation. They have to wait on congress" routine.

Good luck with the snarks and I hope that Obama calls you real soon.

[treestar]

46. Here's something

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x765194