The face of unions [Reader Post]

In one school district alone the end of non-wages collective bargaining means they can get away from the Teachers’ Union’s own medical insurer….the WEA Trust.
The savings will be $600,000 the first year!
I don’t know how many school districts in Wisconsin are stuck with that medical coverage sham, but it is savings like that in every part of Wisconsin that will save budgets from city to county to state.

Many examples here.

Again, this still allows teachers to use collective bargaining for wages.

They are cornered and dangerous.

This is the Face of the Unions…

Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago. Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka. Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

A federal jury convicted one of Trumka’s UMW captains on conspiracy and weapons charges in York’s death. According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, which tracks Big Labor abuse, Trumka’s legal team quickly settled a $27 million wrongful death suit filed by York’s widow just days after a judge admitted evidence in the criminal trial. An investigative report by Reader’s Digest disclosed that Trumka “did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.”

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation (pdf), the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”

Trumka washed off the figurative bloodstains and moved up the ranks. As AFL-CIO secretary, he notoriously refused to testify in a sordid 1999 embezzlement trial involving his labor boss brethren at the Teamsters Union. No surprise. Thugs of a feather: Trumka’s violence-promoting record echoes the riotous Teamsters strikes dating back to the 1950s, when the union organized taxicab companies to target workers with gas bombs, bottles and fists.

And now, Trumka is spearheading a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote campaign by far-left groups — publicized in the revolutionary Marxist People’s World — to “energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda.”

Take those as literal fighting words. The bloody consequences of compulsory unionism cannot be ignored.

Trumka — The Eddie York Slaying

United Mine Workers President, 25 Years Ago Now AFL-CIO Head and meets with Obama once a week?
Yup. That’s the Guy that has Obama’s ear.

@ Scott in Oklahoma, Some Folks get VETTED before they get a Job…Some Folks don’t…

@retire05, #11:

There are approximately 17% of Americans who are un/underemployed and I doubt they have very much sympathy for these Wisconsin union thugs.

A recent Gallup poll found that 61% oppose a law in their own state similar Scott Walker’s proposal. Only 33% responded that they would favor such a law.

Walker made a serious political miscalculation. He’s provided working and middle class Americans with an issue that has become a rallying point, and is going to have serious national repercussions for republicans in 2012. Union protests are spreading across the states like wildfire. The danger is so obvious that his approach has alreadly lost the support of 4 other republican governors.

Any similar miscalculation in the Republican majority House of Representatives will likely prove to be disasterous.

The more capitalism passes over from free competition to monopoly, the greater the number of its industrial branches that have become unable to develop adequately, the more the influence of state and community on the character and extent of production increases, the more necessary it will be for every class to gain influence on state and community, the more fatal will be the isolation of trade unions that prevents the proletariat from depending and promoting its interests effectively, the more indispensable it will be that the trades unionists are inspired with socialist discernment and socialist enthusiasm the more necessary, on the other hand, that the Social Democracy should be able to rely upon a numerous army of organized trades unionists, on which rest the deepest and firmest roots of its power.

The trades unions will not disappear along with the capitalist mode of production like the journeymen’s organizations vanished with the guilds. On the contrary, they will constitute the most energetic factors in surmounting the present mode of production and they will be the pillars on which the edifice of the socialist commonwealth will be erected. – Karl Krautsky

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1901/04/unions.htm

Any wonder why the unions have the support of Obama, and he of them?

@Old Trooper2:

True, but the money is more a means to an end for that crowd.

“Change comes from power, and power comes from organization.”

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

The change of America from a proud republic to a whimpering socialist state is their goal, and the money being thrown around between organized labor, the federal government, and people like Soros, is intended only to gain the power, necessary to affect that change. Whether that power, gained through money, is taken from the willing or unwilling is of little consequence to them.

@Nan G:

It is NOT ”for the children” at all!

It never was, Nan. Decades upon decades of teachers rallying around the cry “It’s for the children!”, have been nothing more than lies.

@OldTrooper2

Trumka, unsurprisingly, is for higher taxes upon the working populace to…….get this……………create jobs! Of course, it involves soaking those who work out of more of their hard-earned money so that the government can then give it to union workers for “infrastructure”.

What’s the best way to get Americans back to work?

Raise taxes, according to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Specifically, he wants to raise the federal gas tax as a means to fund infrastructure spending. “We need a dedicated source of revenue to create infrastructure in this country,” he tells Aaron Task

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/26/trumka-best-way-to-create-jobs-is-to-raise-taxes/

The economically illiterate should not have the President’s ear on fiscal matters. What this guy doesn’t explain, because he is too ignorant to do so, is that higher fuel prices result in higher costs for every product you buy, anywhere. People will cut back even more, if possible, depressing many industries even further as less product is purchased by consumers. You go on, round and round with the economic impact of higher taxation and yet still have the Idiocracy claiming it’s “the right thing to do”.

@Nan G:

I’ll add this to the list of unsurprising actions by the teacher’s unions:

NEA to Double Member Dues Contribution to Political War Chest

Amid substantial membership losses and a $14 million shortfall in its general operating budget, the National Education Association plans to double each active member’s annual contribution to the national union’s political and media funds.
………………….
NEA is already the top political campaign spender in the nation. This increase will give the national union an additional $40 million per election cycle. The increase alone is larger than all but two other groups spent during the entire 2007-08 cycle.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/26/nea-to-double-member-dues-contribution-to-political-war-chest/

And who is it that rails against political spending by corporations?

@johngalt, #16:

Why do I suspect that concentrated wealth and power in America might also have organized to protect and further their own collective interests?

They’ve made a remarkably effective job of it, if the astonishing upward concentration of the nation’s total wealth and income is any indication. They’re also doing a remarkably effective job of demonizing anyone or anything presuming to organize a challenge that trend.

@Old Trooper2, #23:

@ Greg, OK Pardner, Show Me in the US Constitution where “Redistribution of Wealth” was the desire of the Founding Fathers.

Is there anything in the Constitution suggesting that Americans aren’t allowed to organize to obtain a larger share of the wealth that’s produced from the work they do and the services they render?

Wanting an ever-increasing share of that to be distributed upward seems to be perfectly OK; wanting an increased share to be distributed downward is apparently fundamentally un-American.

@Greg:

Wanting an ever-increasing share of that to be distributed upward seems to be perfectly OK; wanting an increased share to be distributed downward is apparently fundamentally un-American.

How do you respond to someone who willfully ignores historical evidence and experience? Do you not understand that business owners and corporations reinvest the profits made back into their company or business, either through expansion of services/products or area covered? They create jobs when they do so, unlike the government taking wealth, which only redistributes it. As for people wishing a higher wage for the service they render to an employer, who is to say that they are not paid fairly for the work they do? You? Obama? Some fatcat union manager pulling in multiple times the average union member? How about the employer? That would be my answer, and if they do not, then they lose workers to the competition, or to other industries. There is nothing preventing those people from seeking gainful employment elsewhere, as I and many others have done from time to time.

Why do I suspect that concentrated wealth and power in America might also have organized to protect and further their own collective interests?

Even if that were true, they would be hard pressed to equal the concentration of wealth and power the unions have amassed towards political expenditures:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml?PHPSESSID=6a8f67e0d24618da7d8b1a960ecbc670

Is there anything in the Constitution suggesting that Americans aren’t allowed to organize to obtain a larger share of the wealth that’s produced from the work they do and the services they render?

No, not that I know of. And there is nothing in the Constitution stating that the people have to give in to their demands either. The case in WI is really best described as the people of WI vs. public employee unions. The people elected Walker Governor. The people placed majority control in the Republicans hands. The people of WI decided enough was enough and voted for “change”. The problem you, and other liberals have, is that it doesn’t fit your ideal world, the narrative on life you all have built up with falsehoods and outright lies.

The trades unions will not disappear along with the capitalist mode of production like the journeymen’s organizations vanished with the guilds. On the contrary, they will constitute the most energetic factors in surmounting the present mode of production and they will be the pillars on which the edifice of the socialist commonwealth will be erected. – Karl Krautsky

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1901/04/unions.htm

I invite you again to explain to the conservative readers here how we are wrong in linking unions to the goals of the socialist doctrines.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh when he called “union dues” money laundering.

@Greg:
Must’ve missed this, heh?

Let’s see you find the problems in their methodology, greg.
I did.
It wasn’t even difficult.

1st hint:
The ”poll” was sponsored by the AFL-CIO, Change to Win and the NEA.

@Greg:

A recent poll suggest that Wisconsin voters aren’t particularly happy with Walker’s attack on public employee unions, or with the job he’s doing.

So…………we are expected to believe a poll, conducted at the behest of the AFL-CIO, by a democratic polling firm, on issues relating to teachers unions, of which some are affiliated with the AFL-CIO (http://www.scfl.org/?ulnid=1655), and take it as gospel that the taxpayers in WI are against Gov. Walker’s legislation?

Walker didn’t say word one about summarily eliminating Wisconsin public employees’ collective bargain rights during his governor’s campaign. If he thinks he had some sort of mandate from Wisconsin voters to do so, he’s imagining it.

Let’s take this in pieces, shall we?

-Gov. Walker is NOT “summarily eliminating Wisconsin public employees’ collective bargain rights”. You continue to spin the truth about the legislation and what it actually will accomplish, all for the sake of continuing the liberal’s narrative on the topic.

The bill would also prohibit most government workers from collectively bargaining for anything other than their salaries, or from demanding pay increases above the Consumer Price Index measure of inflation. To bypass the salary cap would require voter approval. Additionally, the bill would stop unions from forcing public employees to pay dues. It would also cut some spending in an effort to rein in the state’s massive budget deficit.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6458-wisconsin-protests-the-reforms-the-reality

-As for him not saying “word one” about this particular issue, you are correct, however, upon one actually reading his issue stances on his campaign website, the general idea of this legislation is right there for people to see once they take off the blinders.

Much of Wisconsin’s economic woes have resulted from years of delaying prudent financial decisions while making little effort to implement a pro-growth agenda for the state.
-Just because a government program has a vocal constituency and a high-priced lobbyist does not mean it should continue,
-The budget process should be about funding essential government services based on the taxpayers’ ability to pay.
-It should not be about horse trading for special interest groups or establishing talking points for the next campaign.

http://www.scottwalker.org/issues/government-reform

If he thinks he had some sort of mandate from Wisconsin voters to do so, he’s imagining it.

-Walker won election 52% to 42%.
-WI state assembly, 60-R, 38-D, Ind-1
-WI state senate, 19-R, 14-D
All races turned to Republican control in the 2010 elections, in significant changes to the overall makeup of the Wisconsin legislature. I’d contend that the voters in WI decided enough was enough when it came to D’s leading the state. Whether or not you want to call it a mandate, or in your case, deny it, the state of WI decided conservatively in Nov. 2010.

As for the actual bill itself, it is not right, and it is never right, to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for excessive pension and benefits liabilities, particularly when they themselves are hurting economically. When the taxpayers realize the truth about the legislation, and not the spin you and your liberal buddies are spreading around, my belief is that they will side with the Gov.

According to a 21 February Rasmussen poll, likely 2012 voters favor Walker’s stance over the unions’, by a 48 to 38 percent margin. Another Rasmussen survey shows that 67 percent of voters believe Wisconsin Democrats were wrong in fleeing the state rather than voting on Walker’s budget proposals. The MSM probably won’t be citing those results any time soon.