Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions
Economics has "disrupted" private unions. Private unions "disrupted" the economic conditions of private companies.
and now are after public one because they vote Dem
there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest
Your article talks about "new battle grounds and initiatives", and about "A high stakes battle." It says "Prominent in many states since the 1970s, public sector unions have delivered a one-two political punch – helping to elect liberal Democrats to state and local offices and then pushing those officeholders to expand public services like health care and education. Even at their heyday, most private sector unions struggled to have much impact in state politics, so by undercutting unionized public employees conservatives can weaken their most powerful adversary, clearing the way for legislatures and governors to achieve right-wing priorities such as tax cuts, sharp reductions in social spending, and the elimination of regulations."
It ends with "So far, however, progressives have not had much success at defending public sector unions – in large part because, since 2010 and 2014, Democrats find themselves holding historically low numbers of seats in state legislatures where rights for public unions are decided. Liberals tend to focus on national politics and campaigns for the presidency, but clearly state governments are equally important arenas – above all for fights over public employee unions that are likely to influence the future balance of power between liberals and conservatives in American politics overall."
Your article is clearly pushing for a new plan, "grand" or not, of having public unions be more active in turning state legislatures from "conservative" to "progressive." "Conservative" is code for free market capitalism and "progressive" or "liberal" are now clearly labels for progressive style government which is a form of socialism which ultimately trends toward total fascism if not total socialism.
Your article is clearly about the nexus between politics and unions. And it explicitly says that unions support, and require, progressive government. It clearly lays out the battle between conservative government and progressive government. That's the battle that must be won if public unions are to thrive.
So your article does propose a battle plan which elevates the struggle between two forms of government--a free market form and a socialistic form. And public unions are a byproduct of that struggle. And they depend on the socialist form to survive.
no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ...
The battle between the haves and the have nots is one of those union mantras that is not quite accurate. Modern battles between unions in the private sector is between the wealthy "haves" usually big companies, and their employees who are usually not wealthy but are well-off "haves." Public sector unions, the not wealthy but still well-off haves, battle against their public-at-large tax cash cow private citizens who overall on average are often not as well-off.
Oh . . . and yes, some, including FDR, your Democrat (Progressive) hero and creator of forced "collective bargaining" did care about public unions right at the beginning of it all and well before private companies supposedly, as you put it, "put the screws to the private sector." FDR and prominent labor leaders at the time such as Samuel Gompers said that there must not be public unions--for the same reasons that I have mentioned. They knew the pernicious problems public unions would create.
yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security..
Absolutely correct. A big plus over what many private workers (you know--the ones who pay for the public workers security) face.
but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..
I haven't heard about privatizing ALL areas of government, but some areas could actually better serve the public at less cost. Detroit (the administration is not "conservative" but very "progressive") has contracted with a private trash and garbage pickup company in order to divest itself of some of the legacy costs that helped bankrupt it. And the service is actually better and more reliable. And the company took on most of the drivers that had worked for the city.
Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..
I may be wrong, but don't the employees who work for those companies pay taxes on their wages. And don't they spend money and buy homes and pay property taxes and gas taxes and fuel the economy of other local retail businesses all of which boosts the overall tax revenue of the community? Why on earth would you expire tax incentives when they help infuse economic blood into your system. And, basically, the dirty little secret is that companies don't pay as much in taxes as it appears. They mostly pass the tax burden back on to consumers. So another bonus of tax incentives is that it saves the public some money when they buy the products.
But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place  |
Actually, the companies brought you an economic base from which you could better yourself--in the first place. What happens in the second, third, or whatever place after that is not as simplistic as you and Michael Moore make it out to be.
It sounds as if you're not in favor of having the companies coming back to the states unless the unions and the government can impose on them the things that chased them out--in the first place (or was that the second, or third, place?). And if you don't have the companies that brought enough wealth to your community, in the first place, to pay for those teachers and police and fire fighters, who is "attacking" those folks by not providing a tax break which keeps the companies in town?
Right now, without those treacherous companies, some places are left only with those minimum wage jobs that you complain about. Many blame a great deal of that on our benevolent illegal alien population. But Trump is a "racist" for trying to remove that element. Of course, those treacherous companies are said to want the illegals because they can pay them less. Can you blame them for wanting to reduce their costs? I hear a lot of big businesses, and Wall Street, you know, those dastardly money grubbers who devastate the country, are afraid of trump. Hmmph. Probably because they don't like racists.
You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.
That in socialism there is no middle class--just the ruling elite over all the rest? In equalitarian societies everybody is equal, there is no class, except for the head honchos, they are always more equal than the rest.
