I have been waiting two days to post this thread: Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory

[hazlnut]

Why didn't anyone think it was significant besides me?


Public sector unions are finished..


Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory at Supreme Court


Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory at Supreme Court


WASHINGTON — Dianne Knox describes herself as "a child of the '60s." Pam Harris grew up a butcher's daughter in a proud union household. Rebecca Friedrichs was secretary of her local teachers' union. Mark Janus supports the rights of workers to organize.


A 5-4 decision against the unions would free about 5 million government workers, teachers, police and firefighters, and others in 22 states from being forced to pay "fair share" fees — a potentially staggering blow to public employee unions.

The challengers' battles against the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers are based on disagreements with the political and policy priorities of the national leadership.

“This is not my father’s or my grandfather’s union," says Harris, recalling the Amalgamated Meat Cutters to which they belonged. “This is a money-making scheme. It is a way to advance political agendas.”

Union leaders see the opposite — a power grab by what they call corporate billionaires and right-wing special interests to cripple the unions standing in their way.

"It is a defunding strategy," Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said at a press conference with other union leaders Wednesday. "They want the economy to be further rigged in their favor."

This has to do with collecting fees from non-members.

Maybe you should read the article before posting.

Idiot.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was started in 1866 as a Gentlman's club. Nice way of putting it. They were created to try and stop the Reconstruction started in 1866 that the Republicans in power in Washington had started. They were against making Blacks equal to Whites.

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.

They started out backing the Democratic Party but during the New Deal, they bailed and started supporting the Republican Party that had more or less changed position with the old Democratic Party. During the late 50s and early 60s was when the first hints of getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws and Practices. During that time, there were many, many lynchings, burning alive, beating to death and more.

Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.

What many don't remember is that the first Civil Rights were started by the Republicans, mainly, Ike. Kennedy and Johnson expanded on it. But somewhere in history Ike's roll has been left out.

Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

The KKK will always claim to be whatever Party that suits them. Criminals really don't have a Party Affiliation. Outside of being criminal. We spend way too much time trying to use nicey nicey labels for them. They aren't nice and they are just criminals.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

Ok pogo your two pet peeves is the Democrat KKK and the EC..


But you are wrong.

Here's your task Twinkles....

*******PROVE******* anything I posted to be "wrong".

Proof talks -- bullshit walks.

Public opinion and history books , prove you wrong pogo...

So much so that you can't quote any.

Keep walkin' Nancy.

Hey that's not fair and hitting below the belt..


I loved her song ...

 

[Aldo Raine]

Those unions are the only way workers can score good wages and benefits by evening the playing field with management.

Maybe 50 years ago. Not now. The vast majority of federal contractors are not unionized, and federal workers cannot collectively bargain for benefits--yet both groups are doing very well.

Unions have bankrupted some state and many local governments by bullying them into signing unreasonable, extravagant labor contracts that were not sustainable. Unions have also ruined some companies by bullying them into signing unrealistic labor contracts that made them far less competitive. Just exactly how much are employers supposed to pay people to run a computerized cash register that does most of the work for them, do basic cleaning, stock shelves, answer phones, etc., etc.?

And shall we talk about the unions that have squandered their members' pension funds, that have been caught in bed with organized crime, that are top heavy with highly paid "administrative" positions, and that use member dues for political campaigns?

Unions have not been strong since the 80's. This is mostly a false narrative. Fact is union employees are the only ones by and large that have pensions anymore. Big government and big corporations hate seeing that huge pot of money sitting there. Oh and they really hate to see the average Joe or Jane with any kind of power or control over their lives.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's like a class revolt. The poor, uneducated, unskilled and powerless people are cheering on the super wealthy who want to crush another obstacle in their way to total power. The jealous people not in unions hate that union people are getting good salaries, pensions and health care while they live in traitor parks

Why does government workers need unions to protect them from themselves?

Because the people that work in government (education for example) work no matter which moron is elected. They weather the storms even when the dipshits take money out of one area or refuse to fund it.

Name me the last time a Republican was elected mayor of Chicago for example?


They in bed with each other and that's the problem.

That would be Big Bill Thompson. He got voted out for cozying up to Al Capone, and for hurling ethnic slurs at the Democrat who beat him out of office.

I am impressed...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.


Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.


Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

Ok pogo your two pet peeves is the Democrat KKK and the EC..


But you are wrong.

Here's your task Twinkles....

*******PROVE******* anything I posted to be "wrong".

Proof talks -- bullshit walks.

Public opinion and history books , prove you wrong pogo...

So much so that you can't quote any.

Keep walkin' Nancy.

Hey that's not fair and hitting below the belt..


I loved her song ...

What ever happened to her?

 

[Flash]

This link here shows everybody why we should hold unions in disdain.

Just look at the money going to the filthy Democrats. Disgusting. Piss on them.


Top Organization Contributors | OpenSecrets

Top Organization Contributors

Totals on this page reflect donations from employees of the organization, its PAC and in some cases its own treasury. These totals include all campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, political action committees (including super PACs), federal 527 organizations, and Carey committees. The totals do not include contributions to 501(c) organizations, whose political spending has increased markedly in recent cycles. Unlike other political organizations, they are not required to disclose the corporate and individual donors that make their spending possible. Only contributions to Democrats and Republicans or liberal and conservative outside groups are included in calculating the percentages the donor has given to either party.

Name / total spent / percent to Dems / percent to Reps

Service Employees International Union$280,206,703/100%/1%
National Education Assn$124,325,989/97%/3%
American Federation of State/Cnty/Munic Employees$114,101,113/99%/1%
Carpenters & Joiners Union$111,147,361/96%/4%
American Federation of Teachers$109,735,802/100%/0%
Laborers Union$98,878,663/96%/4%
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$78,532,671/98%/2%
United Food & Commercial Workers Union$72,845,030/100%/0%
AFL-CIO$65,287,998/98%/2%
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union$54,912,103/96%/4%
United Auto Workers$54,288,073/100%/0%
Communications Workers of America$53,149,001/99%/1%
Teamsters Union$48,878,023/95%/5%
Operating Engineers Union$45,801,582/88%/12%
National Assn of Letter Carriers$39,234,063/93%/7%
United Steelworkers$39,001,803/100%/0%
Sheet Metal Workers Union$38,600,159/98%/2%
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union$37,500,988/99%/2%
International Assn of Fire Fighters$33,845,182/86%/14%
National Air Traffic Controllers Assn$29,459,159/81%/20%
Ironworkers Union$27,688,195/96%/5%
Air Line Pilots Assn$26,934,028/79%/21%
American Federation of Government Employees$23,462,586/97%/3%
American Postal Workers Union$22,488,524/97%/3%

 

[Markle]

The work ethic today is stronger than ever. Pay however is so so and most employers are below average. Fact

No, your opinion. Period.

 

[Flash]

Great example of the Union filth. Here they are thwarting Federal law. Talk about scumbags. Probably the Democrats ordered them to do it. Traitors, aren't they?

Sad thing is that New York in not a free right to work state so a person has to contribute to this traitorous activity if they want to work.


N.Y. Teamsters form ‘sanctuary union’ to fight ICE agents

N.Y. Teamsters form ‘sanctuary union’ to fight ICE agents

Worried about federal immigration policies, a New York labor organization is taking steps to protect its own.

Across Long Island and throughout the city, some 120,000 Teamsters are getting prepped to become a “sanctuary union.”

In 27 shops, business agents, supervisors and front-line workers are getting schooled on their rights under U.S. law — and when and how to challenge federal immigration agents who show up to search their work sites.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I love happy endings



From the link




Shipped first to a Bergen County jail in New Jersey, then to Louisiana, Garcia was whisked back to his home country of Guatemala roughly 10 days later

.

 

[initforme]

I can understand your gripe against public unions. I agree with you on that. As far as private unions....I support their efforts. And if they want to contribute to democrats that's their choice cuz its their money. You wouldn't cry and whine about a corporate lowlife donating to the GOP. Can't have it both ways. I totally support their right to organize to heck with the emp!oyer. They aren't slaves after all.

 

[Markle]

I can understand your gripe against public unions. I agree with you on that. As far as private unions....I support their efforts. And if they want to contribute to democrats that's their choice cuz its their money. You wouldn't cry and whine about a corporate lowlife donating to the GOP. Can't have it both ways. I totally support their right to organize to heck with the emp!oyer. They aren't slaves after all.

You're making an obviously desperate effort to compare apples with artichokes. You failed.

 

[Brain357]

I have been waiting for this case. Fuck the filthy greedy unions.

Yeah wages and the middle class have done so well in their decline.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have been waiting for this case. Fuck the filthy greedy unions.

Yeah wages and the middle class have done so well in their decline.

That's what you get for buying cheap crap made in China at Walmart, the problem was you.

 

[Brain357]

I have been waiting for this case. Fuck the filthy greedy unions.

Yeah wages and the middle class have done so well in their decline.

That's what you get for buying cheap crap made in China at Walmart, the problem was you.

I don’t shop at Walmart. Wages and the middle class have been in decline with the unions.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have been waiting for this case. Fuck the filthy greedy unions.

Yeah wages and the middle class have done so well in their decline.

That's what you get for buying cheap crap made in China at Walmart, the problem was you.

I don’t shop at Walmart. Wages and the middle class have been in decline with the unions.

No it hasnt, it been in decline ever since the world finnaly caught up to us after WWII...in the 1980s.

 

[Brain357]

I have been waiting for this case. Fuck the filthy greedy unions.

Yeah wages and the middle class have done so well in their decline.

That's what you get for buying cheap crap made in China at Walmart, the problem was you.

I don’t shop at Walmart. Wages and the middle class have been in decline with the unions.

No it hasnt, it been in decline ever since the world finnaly caught up to us after WWII...in the 1980s.

So when unions began their decline.