Skip to main content

We demand this fraud be stopped!



Michigan has become the latest state to adopt a Right-to-work law, in what appears to be a rather blatant effort to further bust unions.  Similar efforts are also being made in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  On the surface, the Right-to-work law sounds reasonable.  Why should workers be required to be part of unions in order to retain their jobs in closed shops?   I suppose this is why so many Americans support these measures.  But, when you look at the forces at work, notably the Koch Bros, this is nothing more than an attempt to further undermine unions in America, which have suffered greatly ever since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed over Truman's veto in 1947.  Today, 24 states have right-to-work laws, and of couse if Republicans had their way there would be a national right-to-work law undermining those states which still respect unions.  Republican presidents have invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to break strikes, most recently Bush in 2002 to end a longshoremen's strike on the West Coast, which shut down virtually all the ports.  Just shows that the struggle never ends.

Comments

  1. I find it very upsetting. I've been watching Ed Schultz on this, since he's really good on labor issues (otherwise his "style" is a little hard to take). He showed a chart with the income and union affiliation and as union membership has declined, so have wages. Americans are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

    But the main issue is political. If you bleed the unions of dues and members, they don't have the resources to fight back. He showed a great clip of Karl Rove saying exactly that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What gets me is how these Republicans are supposed to be all for state rights, yet they are mounting costly national campaigns to get union states to adopt these right-to-work laws, having overturned legislates in these states in recent years. It really makes you wonder why states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Jersey would vote for Republicans to begin with. I don't think these states will stay Republican very long.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Republicans are all for letting states decide things for themselves except when they're not. The hypocrisy . . . oh, never mind.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

  Welcome to this month's reading group selection.  David Von Drehle mentions The Melting Pot , a play by Israel Zangwill, that premiered on Broadway in 1908.  At that time theater was accessible to a broad section of the public, not the exclusive domain it has become over the decades.  Zangwill carried a hopeful message that America was a place where old hatreds and prejudices were pointless, and that in this new country immigrants would find a more open society.  I suppose the reference was more an ironic one for Von Drehle, as he notes the racial and ethnic hatreds were on display everywhere, and at best Zangwill's play helped persons forget for a moment how deep these divides ran.  Nevertheless, "the melting pot" made its way into the American lexicon, even if New York could best be describing as a boiling cauldron in the early twentieth century. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America takes a broad view of events that led up the notorious fire, not...

Team of Rivals Reading Group

''Team of Rivals" is also an America ''coming-of-age" saga. Lincoln, Seward, Chase et al. are sketched as being part of a ''restless generation," born when Founding Fathers occupied the White House and the Louisiana Purchase netted nearly 530 million new acres to be explored. The Western Expansion motto of this burgeoning generation, in fact, was cleverly captured in two lines of Stephen Vincent Benet's verse: ''The stream uncrossed, the promise still untried / The metal sleeping in the mountainside." None of the protagonists in ''Team of Rivals" hailed from the Deep South or Great Plains. _______________________________ From a review by Douglas Brinkley, 2005

The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order

A quarter of a century, however, is time enough to dispel some of the myths that have accumulated around the crisis of the early Thirties and the emergence of the New Deal. There is, for example, the myth that world conditions rather than domestic errors and extravagances were entirely responsible for the depression. There is the myth that the depression was already over, as a consequence of the ministrations of the Hoover Administration, and that it was the loss of confidence resulting from the election of Roosevelt that gave it new life. There is the myth that the roots of what was good in the New Deal were in the Hoover Administration - that Hoover had actually inaugurated the era of government responsibility for the health of the economy and the society. There is the contrasting myth (for myths do not require inner consistency) that the New Deal was alien in origins and in philosophy; that - as Mr. Hoover put it - its philosophy was "the same philosophy of government which...