General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLobbyists threaten to pull donors from Republicans who don't support "right to work" laws
Yes it's Missouri but you can bet this is going on nationwide at the hands of ALEC et al:
At one point, Steve Hunter, a former Missouri lawmaker who took up work as a lobbyist after leaving public service, told the Republicans that they would lose donors if they dont take up a radical anti-union bill: If you dont take on the fights, and these guys that are giving money? I mean, this is just all basic 101. Youre going to start losing donors.
Another speaker promises that if lawmakers push for this bill, we want to make sure your backs are covered when it comes time for re-election. And thats where we come in. To have the groundwork laid for you. So your backs can be covered.
MORE (including recording):
http://boldprogressives.org/secret-audio-captures-donors-threatening-missouri-republicans-if-they-dont-embrace-anti-union-bill
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)When will the Dems find someone this Orwellian? Hate to stoop to their level, but marketing is very, very important.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)It's really the right to be fired for anything law.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I think it pre-dates Luntz.
Still sucks, but I don't think it was his idea.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Before Congress passed the TaftHartley Act over President Harry S. Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a closed shop, in which employees at unionized workplaces must be members of the union as a condition of employment. Before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
The TaftHartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire, is also illegal. Under the law, it is illegal for any employer to force an employee to join a union.
A similar arrangement to the union shop is the agency shop, under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.
Section 14(b) of the TaftHartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union.[6] In other words, the employee has the right to work for a willing employer, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)The champions of right to work laws are not supporters of workers rights. The National Right to Work Committee was founded in 1954 by a group of ultra-conservative businessmen, including Whitford Blakeney, one of the best known anti-labor lawyers of his time, whose career included representing J.P. Stevens textile company, whose campaign against unionization was found by the National Labor Relations Board to include excessive and egregious unfair labor practices. To this day, the NRTWC functions as an arm of organized business. It did not support civil rights laws protecting workers from racial and gender discrimination. It does not support increasing protection against retaliation for workers who try to organize. It does not support protecting workers lives by improving enforcement of occupational safety and health laws. In fact, the Committees leadership works closely with those who oppose improving the rights of workers.
Advocates of right to work laws claim that such laws protect workers right to freedom of association by preventing them from being forced to join unions against their will. This is not true. Workers already have this right under the National Labor Relations Act. Section 7 of the Act prohibits discrimination against any employee because they have chosen to join or not join a union. No new state law is needed to protect workers in this area. Right to work laws allow workers to accept the benefits of union membership without sharing the cost. This is a right no one should have, the right to get something for nothing and make others pay the bill.
http://workrights.us/?products=right-to-work-laws
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Right to Works sucks. Period.
All anyone has to do is look at the results in states like Georgia. RTW is nothing more than union busting and wage reduction. Period.
My grandfather organized the union in a steel plant in KY. We're a union family, yet my brother agrees with these fools, even though they shipped his entire plant offshore to avoid paying union wages and he lost a good job after 20+ years.
I don't get it; I'll never understand how these republicans entice people like my brother to vote against their own self interest.
It's mind boggling.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)had the money to fund a large scale, wide-reaching. largely uncountered advertising campaign for their lies.
Why the Left Has No Answer to the Right-Wing Lie Machine
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Michigan certainly was countered and they passed it anyway. There's tons of evidence that RTW hurts workers, but no one could stop it in Michigan.
The bottom line is simple - we've allowed the unions to become powerless. Sure, they had a hand in it by assuming it would go on forever and not being there for workers like my brother, but so did folks like Bill Clinton and Zell Miller. When you have Democrats siding with corporations like Walmart over the unions, you lose.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)strongly supports my case that the problems you mention were allowed to develop, in large part, because of the ubiquitous RightWing Propaganda Machine that has sold a basic idea: liberal bad, conservative good. So successful is their propaganda that they have even managed to get people to turn against things they like and believe in Simply by by calling them liberal.
Admittedly, I just skimmed it this time, but read it thoroughly in the past and remember it that way. There's another article I read a couple of years ago that I just can't seem to find again, but it did a great job of explaining this and it talked about how donors on the right are more than willing to donate money for non-specific, non-policy-tied messaging, but that on the left donors are far less willing to do so. And it makes the case that this has damaged progressives massively.
Wish I could find that darn article.
Thanks for the discussion.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And the early 1940s as propaganda. I promise you, Luntz was not alive then.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)come to government and ask for what the Constitution promises them
These are evil people and deserve to be rounded up and put in camps
chervilant
(8,267 posts)That's what allowed a malicious, mendacious man to "terminate" me the day before our Christmas break (I could tell he was enjoying himself).
I called the Labor Board and was told I would have to litigate if I wanted to address his deceit. The rep said he could fire me "for any reason or no reason at all."
Meanwhile, how do you tell prospective employers that you've been wrongfully terminated?
Right to Work, my ass!
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)and worker's rights to organize to demand pay and benefits.