By Douglas V. Gibbs
Labor unions were born from the belief of socialism. Now, they don't hide those roots, and they have made it loud and clear that they stand for socialism. The evidence is in their words. Listen to Trumka, listen to Jimmy Hoffa. They are all socialists.
The union members may not be, though. I understand the unions don't necessarily represent the beliefs of the union rank-and-file workers. These people work hard, and believed that the unions were there to protect the workers. The problem is, the union could care less about the workers. The unions have evolved into purely political entities. The taxes go to people for free college and free health care, and gives preferential treatment to those who are in this country illegally. The laborers break their backs so that their union dues can go to the democrat party, who then demonizes the very corporations that gives these people their jobs.
Do all labor union members believe that is the way it should be? Of course not, but their voices have been silenced because these labor unions, the bosses in control, dictate how the dues are spent.
Unions have become like the kind of corporations the Occupy movement is railing against. Rather than demonizing corporations, why aren't they demonizing the big bad unions? The unions have corrupt executive management, boards of directors, shareholders in the form of members, and they have employees in the form of staff.
Leftists are demonizing the wrong crowd.
Unions send hundreds of millions of dollars into politics. They fund the democrat party for favors. It doesn't matter how many union members are out of work, the money still winds up donated to the democrat party to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The unions exist to fund the democrat party more than they exist to ensure jobs for the rank-and-file.
Folks have realized the problems with unions, and "Right To Work" States are gaining ground. Private sector unionization is less than 10% of the workforce. Nonetheless, the private sector unions still have enormous clout. The government has given private sector unions an incredible amount of protections, and preferential treatment in relation to taxes. Unions get protections that even churches would envy. They are even tax exempt.
Then, the unions urge their members to vote democrat. It is the least they can do for all the favors. They get their members to vote democrat, and they pump money into the democrat party. That is why the democrats protect the unions so much. It is an enormous way they buy votes.
So here comes Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, demanding unionization of Boeing's plant down in South Carolina. In fact, she thinks that either they must unionize, or the government through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) should have the authority to shut down private-sector plants simply for not being unionized.
Is she serious? She believes the federal government should be able to force a company to unionize? Not only is that very tyrannical, but it shows you how desperate the democrats are when it comes to trying to buy more votes.
The democrats remember 2010. They know what is coming in 2012. Their fake polls about the strength of Obama, or the weakness of the Tea Party is a load of crap, and they know it. The voters spoke in 2010, and plan to speak louder in 2012, and the democrats are trying to buy as many votes as possible. Unionization is a way to steal votes, and ensure yet another money source for the democrats.
It is all about control. The democrats don't care if it is tyrannical, or unconstitutional. If it works in their favor, no matter how insidious it is, they are all for it.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
PELOSI: S. CAROLINA BOEING PLANT SHOULD BE CLOSED IF IT DOESN’T UNIONIZE - The Blaze
1 comment:
My intense dislike for everything Pelosi aside, I cannot fathom how any politician, especially in our dire economic situation would even mention the unionization of this Boeing plant.
Firstly, I'd like to point out that when they were first implented, unions served a valuable purpose, however, societal, economic, and working conditions have changed from the days of the "redneck" WV coal miners. Unfortunately, unions are more detrimental to their members than they are beneficial. The increased wages demanded by unions for their members often pushes already-scarce jobs overseas and into the hands of foreign workers, leaving union members angry AND unemployed. Pelosi should look at the current trend of auto manufacturing to see how unions have hurt the American worker. Instead of moving to the Motor City, or even North of the Mason-Dixon Line, companies such as Toyota are focusing their expansion in the south and lower midwest. The lack of UAW chapters in these areas allows Toyota to employ Americans, produce their product, and still turn a profit. Profit drives wages, wages drive cost, cost drives profit, etc, etc. Are the employees in Alabama's Toyota Plant suffering? No, not at all. They make a decent wage, have decent benefits, and have good working conditions. Are their wages as high as their union counterparts, probably not, but guess what, they are still employed unlike MANY of their union counterparts. Unions are negotiating themselves into the unemployment line and for Pelosi to even mention mandating unionization to Boeing is a slap in the face to not only American businesses, but the American worker as well. Why would an elected official demand that a company that is employing Americans (which is the stated goal of the current administration) unionize and inch closer to moving their jobs to another country? Is it possible that this politician is out of touch with the electorate? Or is it possible that the unions have gotten so ingrained in the political process that offending them is a death-knell for your reelection campaign? Either way, I sincerely hope that our political process continues its trend of stagnation in this case. This suggestion should never make it farther than Pelosi's lips.
Post a Comment