home

Retaliation Against Unions?

by TChris

Is the Bush adminstration harassing labor unions for their support of Democratic candidates?

The Bush administration is rapidly expanding audits of the nation's labor unions, citing a need to ferret out and deter corruption. But union leaders assert that those increased efforts are nothing more than crude political retaliation.

"It is obvious," said John J. Sweeney, the federation's president, "that the Department of Labor's assignment of 48 new staff to audit unions, starting with the A.F.L.-C.I.O., is pure political payback for the labor movement's opposition to the president's antiworker policies."

As former labor secretary Robert Reich points out, "enforcement has been cut in other areas, like occupational safety and minimum wage enforcement." Corruption in labor unions, like corporate misconduct, should be policed. Still, the administration’s sudden emphasis on an enforcement mechanism that burdens unions is suspicious given the administration’s lax enforcement of business regulations that protect employees and consumers.

< Texas Republicans Ponder DeLay | Say Hello >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Johnny on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    Unions are always a target of big business friendly wrong wingers. Of course enforcement of the minumum wage and safety will decrease-the wrong wingers have always sided with the bottom line of the corporations. This is not surprising to me in the least.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    Of all the Repuglican horrors that have been heap upon americans the relentless attack on our Unions has been an unrecognized tragedy. The Unions gave America one of the greatest economies ever. If you consider the uplifting of the averge American worker.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    Yeah but if it weren't for those unions all the wealth could of trickled down to the workers!

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:05:20 AM EST
    Yes, bush hates working people, bush hates Labor Unions, its his way of doing business the old way.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#5)
    by cp on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    hey, if that guy, who got his hand cut off, because the safety shield on the saw wasn't replaced, had donated to the republican party, osha would be there! adam smith is rolling in his grave.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    This is just one more example of The Party using the levers of power to consolidate one-party control. If you call the Social Security Administration you get an ad for The Party's privatization policies while you wait to talk to someone. The Office of Special Counsel has been purged of career professionals and packed with hard-right operatives who retailiate against anyone filing complaints against members of The Party and initiate phony investigations against Democrats. Many agencies use their PR budgets to promote The Party including planting fave news stories. The list goes on. It is all illegal, but the Congress refuses to do anything that might hurt The Party.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    Labor unions and oligarchs have never reconciled their differences.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    That is great, and to the point "Dave Johnson" thank you. To Conscious Angel you got it right.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    The GOP will always hate the unions. The union acts like a protective wall ,that prevents the business from being slave drivers to the workers.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#10)
    by wishful on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:31:10 PM EST
    Is the Bush adminstration harassing labor unions for their support of Democratic candidates? Harassment may be a side benefit. The larger picture points to the Bush administration's systematic elimination a robust middle class. They have been quite successful thus far. The speed at which this goal is being achieved is breathtaking. Haves and have-nots are the future of America, and the future is now.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 06:49:25 PM EST
    Does anyone remember when a single blue collar job allowed you a house, two cars, and supported your spouse and kids. I know, I'm getting old.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#12)
    by roger on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    Tim Z, With that factory job, you got either a small boat, or a cool car for the weekends, dont forget the swimming pool. If you had a year or two of college, you got a summer cabin too. Now, an Ivy league education might get you a tiny effiecency apt in San Fran, or NYC.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    Roger, You know the sad thing is, the younger folks think we're being facetious.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:36:32 AM EST
    I am no fan of corruption, either in the corporate world or the labor unions. Both have had trouble maintaining reasonable ethical standards. But I doubt the scoped and intent of prosecution if people like Ebbers, Fastow, Milliken, Lay come out of their trials with their fortunes intact. Of course, there was the spectacle of Martha Stewart in jail for a few months. That should satisfy the doubters, right?

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:08:37 AM EST
    It sure smells politically motivated. I deal w/ customer's truck drivers, some teamsters, some not. The teamsters make 18-20 an hour, the non-union guys 10-12. And guess what, the companies with union drivers remain profitable! And the union drivers can support their families! Everydody wins, the only downside is the owners can only afford two homes instead of 3. Unions are necessary, they keep corporate greed in check. I fear where our country would be without them, and I fear where we are headed with the feds and state govt's attempting to weaken the labor movement at every turn.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    I have made a personal pledge! "I will never purchase anything from Walmart until they have a REAL organized Union work force.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    Good for you, Ed. I haven't shopped their in 7 years, and still feel bad about the one time I did back in 1998 before I knew better. Those Waltons are a sick, greedy bunch.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    their s/b there...sorry I'm so proud that a community near me, Rego Park NY, was able to stop Walmart from building a store there.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    The peoples peaceful revolution against Corporate greed is growing! I Pray

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    Just another example of how Bush "keeps us safe". Protecting workers in the U.S from becoming too complacent about market-unfriendly concepts like decency and justice.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    et al... I have 'belonged' to 4 different unions in my lifetime and the only thing they did for me was relieve me of a major portion of my pay... automatically. Unions are very good at keeping slaggers and trouble makers employed. One guy I worked with was there about 50% of the time & when he did show up, he was usually late but he couldn't be fired. Hale to the unions!

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Johnny on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    B.B. Unions have given us 40 hr work weeks, benefits, safe work conditions, etc etc etc. Without the unions, we would still be working 72 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, til the day we die. Without any kind of medical, retirement (who needed it anyways?), or any amount of time off. Thanks to the unions!

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:25:56 PM EST
    Ed B - What discount department/grocery/pharmacy store has a unionized work force? I can't think of one. et al - My family was Teamster and in my youth I was IBEW for a while. The unions did a lot of good, but then some of them started abusing the system - think Air Controllers - and their management rolled over for the Demos no matter` what the rank and file wanted. So they started losing out. Now the cycle has went too far on the business side, only I don't see how the unions can make a come back when they absolutely pay no attention to what the rank and want, and support Demos who support cultural issues that the worker despises. It may be mox nix, anyway. Manufacturing in this country is pretty close to dead and buried and people making $30K a year cannot support a government workforce making twice that. Our hope should be tied to knowledge workers and technological break throughs. Michael Ditton commented that 10 Indian software engineers could do the work of three US trained software engineers. (My numbers may be off.) In the meantime, make sure you support illegal aliens. They do make cheap nannies and gardners, and can be counted on to vote for the Left's candidates. Of course they depress wages and unions... but hey....

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:27:21 PM EST
    et al - Ditto commented "could not" Sorry Mike.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    I have worked in two union shops in my life one IBEW and one IAM/AFL/CIO and quite frankly they both sucked. For both I worked 8 hrs and 6 days a week and that was mandatory. The union only stuck up for the sh*t bums but never for the guys that deserved the protection. When my father was dying of cancer and I needed time off I asked my employer and he said no so I ask the union to intervene on my behalf and guess what? They told me there was nothing they could do about it so if I wasn't willing to work those hours I should just learn to live with it or quit. Funny though when I tried to have my dues returned to me because the union wasn't representing me I was told tough luck and that it was a closed shop and I had to pay my dues or leave my job, period. When I offered my resignation to my employer and told him what the union had said he gave me liberal time off with pay because the union sucked so bad, go figure. I did leave the union to become a manager in the company and have since left to work for myself. Unions once had their day but now they are nothing more than political fund raisers for the Dems by extorting money from their under represented members who have no imput into where there dues were going. The thuggery in those unions was obvious and unbelievable. They didn't have time to represent a worker but had plenty of time to produce full color infomercials for the Democractic party disguised as the union magazine. Also they had plenty of time and money to pay the Union leaders in the high six-figures with the best perks as well as a ticket to all the best Democract parties in the country. When I think of unions I think less of Joe Hill and more of Jimmy Hoffa, nothing more than a gangster in a two thousand dollar suit who "cares" about the worker. Orwell said it best when he sad that the animals could no longer "tell the pigs from the man and the man from the pigs." At least the employer is honest about who he cares for, himself. The unions of the other hand tell you they care about you so sit down and shut up and if you don't like it then leave. Nice.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Johnny on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:00:42 PM EST
    "The unions of the other hand tell you they care about you so sit down and shut up and if you don't like it then leave." The difference between corporations and unions is that corporations make no secret that want to scroo you.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:53:36 AM EST
    The proof is in the pudding for me boys. Locally at least, union members net more pay after dues, etc. than non-union workers. It's a no-brainer for the working man. The union gets you a better deal...better benefits and higher wages.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:02:52 AM EST
    PPJ, In Chicagoland Jewel and Dominicks the two major Grocery chains are 100% union

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    Johnny, not only does the union try to keep it secret, but but, unlike the corp., with whom you can choose not to do business, you have no choice but to "do business" with the union. The NEA is a good example. They glom onto tax money. Pay or lose your house. Be advised, if many unions were made to come clean, their books would make the likes of Enron smell like roses. Jimcee, very well said in your post at 4/18, 8:46pm.

    Re: Retaliation Against Unions? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:34:44 PM EST
    Ace - Like clock-work defending the strong against the weak. What a guy. PPJ - Since when do you have your finger on the pulse of the "cultural concerns" of workers? But then,in my part of the country, workers have enough faith in thier own concepts of "family values" without having them dictated by some right wing think-tank.