Dean would allow the abolishment of the 14b provision of Taft-Hartley Act

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

Presidential candidate Dr. Howard Dean has stated, on Chris Matthews--Hardball Battle for the White House; that if a piece of legislation that has the removal of the provision of Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (Section 14b--permits individual states to enact their own Right To Work laws.) He would sign it. Thou he would not initiate any form of legislation of this nature.
This would take a couple of senators that are very pro-Union and start this piece of legislation. Then Dean would trample on the states right to have a choice of all unionized shops or not. Dean got caught saying yes then no on the right to work and if it was right too allow such an issue. But since he has two of the largest unions supporting him. This too me is a very double-edged statement.

beginning of snippet:

MATTHEWS: Do you protect-do you protect the right of the person to go work somewhere and not have to join a union? Do you accept the right of right-to-work states to say you don’t have to join a union.
Dick Gephardt sat here and came out and said he was going to say no more right to work and we get rid of 14B, get rid of Taft-Hartley, repeal that, and force people to have to join unions, where they’re organized.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Would you go along with that? Would you buckle to the unions on that?
DEAN: Would I buckle to the unions?
MATTHEWS: Yes, because the unions want you to do it.
DEAN: This isn’t a values-loaded question, by any chance, is it?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask it-let me ask it totally open. Do you think a person has a right to work somewhere if they don’t want to join a union?
DEAN: I do.
No, wait a minute. I don’t.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Why not? What’s wrong with an open shop where you can...
DEAN: I’ll tell you what’s the matter with it. Here is the problem with open-and, look, there’s obviously arguments to be made on...
MATTHEWS: A lot of states have right-to-work laws. You would get rid of them?
DEAN: I don’t like-well, I very much believe that states ought to have the right to recognize-to organize their own laws. So I’m not likely as president to-even though I don’t like right-to-work laws, I’m unlikely to order states to change them.
MATTHEWS: So you wouldn’t repeal 14B?
DEAN: No, I would not, but...
MATTHEWS: So you are different than Gephardt. He is with the unions.
You are not.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I’m serious.
DEAN: All right...
MATTHEWS: I hate it. It’s called HARDBALL. This isn’t “Success” magazine, OK?
(APPLAUSE)
DEAN: Let me tell you what-I actually believe in card check. I believe you shouldn’t have to have an election, that people who want to join a union should just be able to sign a card and join it. Let me tell you where I am on...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You are against-you do not believe in repealing 14B?
You’re not going to accept the challenge from Gephardt to do that?
DEAN: If I got a bill on my desk that repealed 14B, I’d sign it in an instant. I’m just not going to push it hard...
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: Because I do believe states have to have make their own judgments of that.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: I hate right-to-work laws.
And let me tell you why it’s OK to be forced to join a union. The union is out there negotiating for your wage increases. Why should you get a free ride? Why should you should be able to go to work for that company, get the same benefits as everybody else who paid their union dues and you paid nothing? That’s why I’m against right-to-work laws.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: But I do believe it’s important for states to be able to make their own laws.
MATTHEWS: You understand why a libertarian would disagree with you, right? A libertarian would think they had a right, he or she, to work where they can do the job.
DEAN: Yes, but why should they-but why should they get the benefits of everybody else who is paying dues and get a free ride?
MATTHEWS: Because it’s a free country.

end of snippet

Don’t get me wrong; unions are a good thing most of the time? Sometimes they, the unions, are truly blinded by what is the best for the membership and overlook what the results of their actions would have within a town that the union has membership from it.
Hence forcing small to large companies within the listed states above to be all unionized is a great shame. The right to opt in to a union shop will be no longer allowed.




Here below are the Right-to-Work States
State Date Method of Enactment
Florida 11-07-44 Constitutional Amendment
Arkansas 11-07-44 Constitutional Amendment
Arizona 11-05-46 Constitutional Amendment
Nebraska 12-11-46 Constitutional Amendment
Virginia 01-12-47 Legislative Statute
Tennessee 02-21-47 Legislative Statute
North Carolina 03-18-47 Legislative Statute
Georgia 03-27-47 Legislative Statute
Iowa 04-28-47 Legislative Statute
South Dakota 07-01-47 Constitutional Amendment
Texas 09-05-47 Legislative Statute
North Dakota 06-28-47 Legislative Statute
Nevada 12-04-52 Legislative Statute
Alabama 08-28-53 Legislative Statute
Mississippi 02-24-54 Legislative Statute
South Carolina 03-19-54 Legislative Statute
Utah 05-10-55 Legislative Statute
Kansas 11-04-58 Constitutional Amendment
Wyoming 02-08-63 Legislative Statute
Louisiana 07-09-76 Legislative Statute
Idaho 01-31-85 Legislative Statute


If you notice most southern states are listed above. This is a scary since he is trying to reach to the southern voters that have been voting wrong for the last couple of presidental elections.
As well, these other states listed above that voted for Bush in 00 would be carrying Bush stronger since Bush has not ever stated that he would repeal this provision of Taft-Hartley Act to my knowledge.

Yet again Dr. Dean and his "progressive" idealogy is going to hurt the Democratic Party. For all you DU's living in these states listed above plus all other states-- please send out a letter to your local newspapers and get people knowledgable about this issue.

It's really "right to work"--for less. This is wrong. Collective bargaining is a basic democratic right paid for with the blood of the working class. Klanners and fascists opposed the unions because they were agents of change in the feudal apartheid south. It's time for "right to work" to be laid to rest...

So you have to deal with it now IMO...


Im new to this issue so have given it little thought, but I always try to find a solution that will make both sides happy, but will ultimately achieve what is wanted. So I wonder, whats wrong with the reply, "People have as much right to work without joining a Union as a company has a right to pay them less."

Am I missing something by suggesting a two tiered system, in which non union workers wages simply are not adjusted by union bargaining and protected under such? Where unions no longer represent all the workers of a company, but only the union workers. If you could regulate that non-union workers could, unquestionably, never be paid more, then this would seem to be a decent solution. Or m I missing something?

(Implicitly under such a system, only idiots wouldn't sign up on the union, and yet, it would give big businesses nothing to bitch about by using libertarian arguments.)

Maybe this could be a decent approach for a guy in the middle like Dean to take, although Im sure there are some valid arguments against such.




BTW, IMO, to say that someone has the right, because its a free country, to work with union wages without paying dues to a union is the same as saying someone has the right to social services if they refuse to pay taxes. Both government and unions are liberalistic organizations, which establish rights and services that we must fund...and obviously we are not allowed to simply opt out of contributing to the government, whether or not we want their services. Intresting no one equates it to a bigger picture.But obviously a two teired system would never work with government, as the rich could opt out, bankrupt the social services, and not feel it at all.

I am a teacher in Las Vegas, and would go back to dealing cards before I paid one red cent to the union. They have done NOTHING to get our salaries increased. In fact, in TEN years we have gotten ONE raise, and that was a whopping 2%...whoopie! On top of that, they don't handle grievances unless you are on their back, and practically do their job for them.

While I can see the side of people who do pay their union dues, in my case, especially since we are not allowed to strike, it is a complete scam and ripoff to force people into paying the teacher union dues. I'd never, ever do it. Until all unions are proven to actually be on the side of the workers, I'd be heartily against any law that forced me into joining a corrupt union.

I have always equated "right to work" laws with "anti-labor" laws. The real intent of these laws is not to allow individuals the right to work, but to make it easier for businesses to prevent unions from organizing. It is no coincidence that the majority of states with "right-to-work" laws are southern states. Having lived most of my life in the South, working as a physician in a small town where there were no union shops, most of my working patients had no insurance (unless they had Medicaid); were not paid a living wage, and were barely scraping by. Although some unions abuse their power, this is better than the alternative of unfettered corporate power over labor. It is not as simple an answer as Chris Matthews was trying to make it.

I'm in the South, too, and you are spot on about the consequences of "right-to-work" laws.

:hi:

that dealt with the Right-to-Work -- is that small businesses could compete with the bigger companies. Forcing small to medium shops to unionized will only kill of more small shops in the long run. Force them to merge or die of "extra expenses" based on union requirements. No all business managers are bad and they don't always try to "rip off" their employees.

And you got those RW talking points while you were in Texas, did you?

Abolishing right to work laws does not force every employer, whether small or large, to become a union shop. It simply means that if the WORKERS at that shop decide to organize, and if after an election a union is certified, then any employee who works for that shop must join the union and be a dues paying member in exchange for union benefits.

There are no additional requirements for an employer to accept a union if right to work laws are abolished. They would still be subject to the provisions of the NLRA, just as they are NOW. This means that employees have the right to petition/organize for a union and the right to demand a certification election if enough employees sign a petition. That's the law currently, and that's the law if right to work laws are abolished. The only difference becomes whether the EMPLOYEE has to join the union or not.

Any business that would have to close for being forced to recognize a union would have to do so whether the right to work law is in effect or not. Right to work laws have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the employers' obligations to recognize a certified union.

"There are no additional requirements for an employer to accept a union if right to work laws are abolished."

Could be a key point on forcing the union issues on the management/owner of the shop. The management/owner can not fire the whole shop if they want to unionized--it would be wrong termination or baised firing.

Freedom to own a small to meduim business would be in jeopardy based on "any business that would have to close for being forced to recognize a union would have to do so whether the right to work law is in effect or not." Is just wrong...unions are becoming as bad as corporate boards...do this or else!!!

"The management/owner can not fire the whole shop if they want to unionized--it would be wrong termination or baised firing."

That would be illegal NOW! An employer who acted in retaliation for union organizing/certification would be in violation of the NLRA, regardless of whether they are in a right to work state or not. What is so hard for you to understand about that concept?

Your anti-union bias is rather strange for a Dem. :shrug:

and in a moderate, reasonable tone, so I will second you instead of typing a ranting diatribe.

I don't know why we should be supporting things that harm people. We usually favor protecting people from harm, even if they want the freedom to harm themselves. We favor seatbelt laws, for example, because we think the benefits to society as a whole outweigh the arguments for "freedom" of those who would risk death or grave bodily harm in preference to wrinkling their clothes.

In the states following Iowa and N.H.--many of whom happen to be, well, "Right to Work" states.

Nobody in this country should be, in effect, "forced" to join a union to work in a workplace. The union SHOULD be allowed to organize at any workplace, and subsequently to encourage workers to join its membership...but NO ONE should be forced to join one against their will. What kind of freedom is that? Join a union, or be unemployed? If I join a union, it should by MY decision, based upon what union membership would offer me and my family--and my workplace. NOT because I HAVE to.

This is where people like Gephardt can shove it, IMO. And Dean didn't do his forthrightness proud with that one, either.

More to the point, though, is this: Tweety knows to use that question as a trap for "Chip" Rove's future video file--nothing more. He IS one of the premiere Bush Whores on the air, and in his own warped mind he was "just doin' his job" for his REAL master. Unfortunately, Dr. Dean fell for it. Gephardt GLADLY went along with it; I just hope other Dem candidates don't do the same, and reject the very PREMISE of Tweety's probes out-of-hand!:mad:

Someone really needs to go on Hardball and simply SHOW TWEETY UP--once and for all. When it comes right down to it, how hard can that be? :eyes:

B-)

He does ask some serious questions that can be important. Sometimes these questions are stupid and fun. But once a blue moon, he truly asks very interesting questions.

Truly it is our right to have the choice to right to work not the federal government or unions.
This is one of the reasons that I "neutral" at best on unions. Thier methodology of dealing with management is sometime the same as management dealing with the federal government. Screw them over no matter what the overall costs are!!!!

For equal election reform would forbid corporate and union support and monies!!!!!!!

Corporations located plants in the South for the same reasons that they send jobs overseas now -- cheap labor who are proud of not having to join a union, proud to work for low wages and in dangerous conditions -- and don't realize that they are being exploited by people unwilling to use some of their profits to improve their employee's lot.

With the passage of right-to-work laws, corporations have been able to take away much of the power of unions to help workers.

When Clark rolls into town.

Rumor has it that Gen. Shelton may be holding Clark's jacket during the session, but that's probably just someone's drug induced fantasy. Still, one of the other Generals (McCaffrey?) has said S is feeling bad about what he said, and didn't expect it to get blown up into the strawman it has become.

We'll see. One problem for Tweety is that Clark will be within arms reach of him during this interview, unlike that FAUX (the WWE of journalism) NEWS clown.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

In my union we were a closed shop, meaning you must join the union to work a union job for my employer. This was a negotiated benefit. People fought hard for this issue. Once in a while someone would complain about paying union dues, usually after an increase. I always made them a standing offer, I will pay your union dues in return for your wage increase. Worked there for 36.4 years, made the offer meny times, guess what, no takers. If you don't want to belong to a union then go work where they don't have a union. It is still your choice to be dumb if you wish.

people's mistrust of "outsiders," letting them see union organizers as "outsiders" who would take away their "right to work," while covering up the fact that they were working for corporate "outsiders" who didn't want the workers to have any rights.

It should not be forced at all. If you want union perks then you go union..if you don't you should not be forced too join.

You can go work in a non-union shop.

You have to join; or start over at another shop. That is wrong. Plain and simple. Plus this could force smaller shop to go out of business because it could allow the possiblity of unions forcing the issue of unionizing. This could add on more expenses too these smaller firms so then they can not have potentially a better bid on some jobs and then poof they are out of business.

and that is the part of the picture you guys miss. Go take one of Walmart little tests and look at all the things they mandate before they give you their pissy underpaid job.

That's my philosophy anyhoo. ;)

Am curious bout this statment.

Yet again Dr. Dean and his "progressive" idealogy is going to hurt the Democratic Party.

:shrug:

will hurt the Democratic party and its chance on win '04. This is typical "inside the beltway" politicking..when the federal government steps on the rights of the states!!!!

not the GOP...the DP is about small government and let the state deal with alot of the issues so it seem the federal government is not stepping on the states or the citizens that live in the those states.

I'm no fan of Howard Dean's but he had the right answer here, sort of, once Matthews pulled it out of him.

If so, let the citizens of each of those states repeal their own states legislation. Don't allow the federal government meddle in state policy.

i think its about time that washington consolidated its power and rendered state government irrelevant

abolish state government then and let the muni's fight it out with the federal government. As well as--abolish Federal senators too.
Let see how well this country would be with out the states ability to have control over its issues.
Yes I think that the federal government should have control on alot of issues..but once it defers it too state level, guess what;the federal government just turn over power absolutely to the states on the those issues.
If these citizens in these listed states voted on the Right-To-Work; it should not be the federal government job to take away these citizens votes after the federal government allowed this subject to be deferred to the state level.
It is like the Supreme Court and its bizarre behaviour in 2000 and dealing with the Florida election issue. It is not the SC power to force Gore and company to mandate a recall. It was Gore and company power to force the issue and they deferred away.

So you are a progressive federalist?

....

TY for your input on the subject.

and progressive democrats are as close as i can get

Right to work means right to work for less. Unions would get rid of that legislation if they could.

or who thinks that "right to work" laws have not harmed the workers of this country, may I suggest a little time-travel back to the turn of the century? There, you can fully enjoy your right to work 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week, with no vacation, no sick time, no holidays, no Workman's Comp or Disability, random firings because you looked cross-eyed at the boss, etc.

laws that are and to help equal and fair LABOR laws. NOT UNION LAWS!!!


Let the citizens of each state decide the RTW rules and not a boardroom full of union leadership!!!!

without the struggles of working people in the labor movement? Read some of the history and see how many times the Federal Government called out troops to put down "labor unrest." People died and starved to gain those protections. And why should Fair Labor Laws be different from State to State - so we can have States competing against each other in a "race to the bottom" for cheap labor? Any delusions that the Federal Government is a friend to "labor" should be dispelled by a quick look at the Federal minimum wage - a wage that will keep one person just above poverty if s/he works 40hrs a week 52 weeks a year. Right to Work laws are just another anti-labor tool that hurts all working people, whether they are in a Union or not.

Labor and union are too different things.....One is the subset of the other.

Unions are that too Labor.

You can not have one with out the other.

Union help Labor; as well, Labor helps Unions.

But if there is no labor there is no unions.

Therefore if unions hurt the process of labor. Unions does a disservice to whole community that labor services.

Example: July 1998 UAW strikes GM plants; this over various issues and alot of serious concerns and problems--but because of one area striking it took the full region by storm and it cause a massive chain reaction that effected alot of non-union businesses that need those union workers to come in and buy hamburgers, sodas, pants, work gloves, etc.

Im not saying that unions are bad or not needed. But because of a handful of people on both sides --- Unions and Corporate Management --- decided not to resolve the issues in a positive fashion that turns in too inflicting harm to the whole community. You want Corporate Management and the various levels of Government accountable for thier actions in the world of business..but the leadership of Unions should bare the weight of all parties decisions as well. No scape goating and pointing fingers. Major corporations account for a small portion of new and sustainable economic growth overall. But in some areas the major corporations are the only major jobs in town--the reason choosing the GM strike. So decisions on those three parties inflicted unnecessary damage vis-a-vis loss sources of sales -- to the mom-and-pop businesses.

I am just saying the Unions are as stubborn on supporting thier members as too Corporate Boards are on supporting thier bottom lines. But once both can not work together, sometimes on the smallest issues, the community at-large gets the worse of it.

Hence the need for the option of the right-too-work for those citizens of those states that have voting in. For those that are not "striking" on the COMPANY X, can still possible help other businesses in the community at-large and not have the area grid to a halt for the lack of ecomonic functionality.

nt

I will find out when OK voted it in and edit my post.

In theory no one should be forced to join a union. If someone doesn't one to be in one then he/she should have the right not to join. In principle forced unionism is not fair to the employee because in theory that person should be able to decide for himself.

By the same token, however, people also have the right to be stupid. If they don't want to join a union then they shouldn't be allowed to have any benefits or protections that their counterparts who participate have.

However, in the real world, what RTW laws mean is "the right to work for less". If people "want to work for less" then, by all means, they should have that right.

By killing off what those voters wanted is just another not soo bright issues of Dr Dean polarizing the issues against them.

once again leaves me at a loss to know where he's at on an issue. I liked his seemingly spontaeneous "I hate Right to Work laws" but it is undermined by his support for "State's Rights" which in this case, as in most, is a code word for reactionary oppression of one group or another.

(1) He would sign a bill to abolish 14-B if it magically appeared on his desk.

(2) He dislikes right-to-work laws.

(3) He won't push the issue through Congress.

(4) It's a states rights issue.

He's all over the map. :wtf:

Just look at what he did to Democratic Party in Vermont in other threads pretaining the issues of the DP registered voters that voted went down the last 3 elections in Vermont and the Republicans and 3rd party members went up.

In fact what really got me liking my own guy was his stance on Taft-Hartley.

The THA has be around for how many years?
Why has not any other Democratic president since then touched it?
Cuz Democratic party believe to a certian degree in states right over federal rights????

I think he wants to repeal THA. I think the reason why no democratic president has touched it, is because gradually the party has grown less of the people's party it once was, it still is a good party keep in mind but economically things have changed for our party in a way I dont like, Truman tried to but the majority GOP congress wouldnt let him. Thats a good question though, but I think he wants to repeal most if not all of Taft-Hartley.

Your insight on issues are greatly welcomed and you are a person that shows flexibility and reason.

Side point:
Thou I still soooo unhappy that DK potential won't reconsider the idea of "fixing" NAFTA/WTO within a stated timeline(12-18 months or other reasoning timing) with a small team working on a good solid process if it doesn't work(concurrently)--so if the US doesn't like the end results or the process..BAM...the process of switching wont be what I think as a very dangerous and downward spiral for the US for a short term. Cuz if he states that I would be on board with DK no ifs ands or buts about it.

I think hes against those because he sees what they have done to the nation but I understand your concern. A lot of my family are liking him which really is plesing me.

Thou I'm leaning Edwards then Braun then DK then Sharpton...the rest I would vote for to get the talking house plant out of office but I dont like them.

It is a right to be treated just any old way an employer chooses. It is union busting in a royal manner. It is not what the name implies.

I see your logic.

Yes you have the choice of staying or go if the employer(or agents of it) mistreats you.