Mass. Dem Urges Unions to Get a Little Bloody

[Dusty]

Wait a minute-no more "civility"?

Hypocritical Democrats are blatantly and consistently doing more to screw up this Country than any other factor in history.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...when-necessary

Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.

"I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to the Dorchester Reporter. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

Political observers have been the lookout for potentially incendiary rhetoric in the wake of January's shooting in Tucson, Ariz., where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) survived an assassination attempt, six were killed, and 13 others were injured.

Political rhetoric has become especially heated in Madison, Wis., where Republican Gov. Scott Walker has proposed major labor reforms that sparked more than a week's worth of rowdy protests at the state capitol.

"We take security seriously, whether it's for me, the lieutenant governor and all 132 members of the state legislature, Democrats or Republicans alike, because there's a lot of passion down here," Walker said Tuesday on MSNBC about his safety in Wisconsin. "And particularly when we see people coming in being bussed in from other states, that's what worries us."

Capuano made his remarks before a crowd of union members in Boston, along with other members of the state's congressional delegation. Massachusetts has an influential union population that could loom large over the 2012 Senate race. Capuano is considering getting in that race to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) next fall.

“This is going to be a struggle at least for the next two years. Let’s be serious about this. They’re not going to back down and we’re not going to back down. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of America,” Capuano told union members.

[Pete]

Not everyone can be employed by the public sector. Somebody in the private sector has to produce stuff that can be sold at a proffit to generate wealth.

If everyone worked for the public sector the tax rate would have to be 100%.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Pete

Not everyone can be employed by the public sector. Somebody in the private sector has to produce stuff that can be sold at a proffit to generate wealth.

If everyone worked for the public sector the tax rate would have to be 100%.

But, then, Socialism would eventually fail...

[tonyz]

His choice of words - arguably inflammatory - his position vis-à-vis his overall party leader, BHO, undoubtedly hypocritical - and his observation that "this is a struggle for the hearts and minds of America...” is IMO spot on.

The struggle does indeed continue...however, as others have wisely pointed out - the money to fund this type BS won't continue much longer.

[uplink5]

Originally Posted by Pete

Not everyone can be employed by the public sector. Somebody in the private sector has to produce stuff that can be sold at a proffit to generate wealth.

If everyone worked for the public sector the tax rate would have to be 100%.

I got a kick out of one of the union agitators suggesting that collective bargaining was a human right. Really?

These people need to stop drinking their own bathwater.

Also...

Bloody tactics like those used by unions in the past will backfire. The American people are already turned off by union arrogance. Let things get bloody and it will set the unions and their cheerleaders in DC back even further.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by uplink5

Bloody tactics like those used by unions in the past will backfire. The American people are already turned off by union arrogance. Let things get bloody and it will set the unions and their cheerleaders in DC back even further.

That is a very important observation - the unions have tainted their reputation in the eyes of many, by their own involvements and activities including, crime, corruption, electioneering, and ties to other suspect organizations.

[tonyz]

Jonah Goldberg: Public unions must go
Public unions have been a 50-year mistake.
By Jonah Goldberg
LA Times
February 22, 2011

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...4678423.column

"The protesting public school teachers with fake doctor's notes swarming the Capitol building in Madison, Wis., insist that Gov. Scott Walker is hell-bent on "union busting" in their state. Walker denies that his effort to reform public sector unions in Wisconsin is anything more than an honest attempt at balancing the state's books.

I hope the protesters are right. Public unions have been a 50-year mistake.

A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker's proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private sector unions.
Traditional, private sector unions were born out of an often bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management. It's been said that during World War I, U.S. soldiers had better odds of surviving on the front lines than miners did in West Virginia coal mines. Mine disasters were frequent; hazardous conditions were the norm. In 1907, the Monongah mine explosion claimed the lives of 362 West Virginia miners. Day-to-day life often resembled serfdom, with management controlling vast swaths of the miners' lives. And before unionization and many New Deal-era reforms, Washington had little power to reform conditions by legislation.

Meanwhile, government unions have no such narrative on their side. Do you recall the Great DMV cave-in of 1959? How about the travails of second-grade teachers recounted in Upton Sinclair's famous schoolhouse sequel to "The Jungle"? No? Don't feel bad, because no such horror stories exist.

Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted, by executive order (so much for democracy), the federal ban on government unions. Civil service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed good working conditions for generations.

The argument for public unionization wasn't moral, economic or intellectual. It was rankly political.

Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic Party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in "The Trouble with Public Sector Unions," in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.

The plan worked. Public union membership skyrocketed and government union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5% going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government.

And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and healthcare costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

But that is exactly what they need to lose.
Private sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests and, as we've seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government. The labor-politician negotiations can't be fair when the unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the New York City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."

This is why FDR believed that "the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," and why even George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, held that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

As it turns out, it's not impossible; it's just terribly unwise. It creates a dysfunctional system where for some, growing government becomes its own reward. You can find evidence of this dysfunction everywhere. The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner notes that federal education spending has risen by 188% in real terms since 1970, but we've seen no significant improvement in test scores.

The unions and the protesters in Wisconsin see Walker's reforms as a potential death knell for government unions. My response? If only."

[mark46th]

There was a time when unions were necessary and in certain circumstances, still have a place. But the power and money accumulated have corrupted them beyond redemption. I was forced to join the Teamsters union for a job I once had. I hated them then and I hate them now. A bunch of thugs , at best...

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by mark46th

There was a time when unions were necessary and in certain circumstances, still have a place. But the power and money accumulated have corrupted them beyond redemption. I was forced to join the Teamsters union for a job I once had. I hated them then and I hate them now. A bunch of thugs , at best...

And the Wisconsin reforms are for public unions only. Not those in private business.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by mark46th

There was a time when unions were necessary and in certain circumstances, still have a place. But the power and money accumulated have corrupted them beyond redemption. I was forced to join the Teamsters union for a job I once had. I hated them then and I hate them now. A bunch of thugs , at best...

Teamsters.....Central States Pension Fund...$320 per month retirement...the Union Doctor....what a crock! For a year my dues went towards fur coats, gold bling and fancy cars for white pimps.

[Sigaba]

I need glasses. I thought the thread was about a Kennedy telling unions to get a little booty.

[dennisw]

I am a union member. I may not be in good standing. A while back I had a very physical day and the good doctor, my wife, prescribed a couple of strong margaritas. Being a good patience I gladly took my medicine. After the margaritas began to work their magic, I received a phone call from a good union official who proceeded to tell me how to vote. As you can imagine I was somewhat indignant and told him to take some inanimate objects and pleasure himself. Lastly, I told him this wasn't Russia and no one was going to tell me how to vote.

Three months later I ran into the same union official, and I was a little schemish. Part of my regret is that I did not exactly remember what I had said, but when a grown man catches his breath after a comment, it's usually pretty bad. He said no problem, it's not Russian you know. And I thought he was listening.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I need glasses. I thought the thread was about a Kennedy telling unions to get a little booty.

No Popeyes for you!

Pat

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Wait a minute-no more "civility"?

Hypocritical Democrats are blatantly and consistently doing more to screw up this Country than any other factor in history.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...when-necessary

Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.

"I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to the Dorchester Reporter. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

Political observers have been the lookout for potentially incendiary rhetoric in the wake of January's shooting in Tucson, Ariz., where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) survived an assassination attempt, six were killed, and 13 others were injured.

Political rhetoric has become especially heated in Madison, Wis., where Republican Gov. Scott Walker has proposed major labor reforms that sparked more than a week's worth of rowdy protests at the state capitol.

"We take security seriously, whether it's for me, the lieutenant governor and all 132 members of the state legislature, Democrats or Republicans alike, because there's a lot of passion down here," Walker said Tuesday on MSNBC about his safety in Wisconsin. "And particularly when we see people coming in being bussed in from other states, that's what worries us."

Capuano made his remarks before a crowd of union members in Boston, along with other members of the state's congressional delegation. Massachusetts has an influential union population that could loom large over the 2012 Senate race. Capuano is considering getting in that race to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) next fall.

“This is going to be a struggle at least for the next two years. Let’s be serious about this. They’re not going to back down and we’re not going to back down. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of America,” Capuano told union members.

now we have "union thugery 101" at UMKC,
http://biggovernment.com/publius/201...union-tactics/

[Box]

As long as politicians can convince 51% of the electorate that this is in their best interest we will continue along this path...
...once society gets a taste of 'free money' its nearly impossible to kick the habit. John Q. Public will almost always vote for the candidate that promises the biggest taste from the government pot.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

I dont know who really originated the above quote; I have seen it attributed to several folks but it is hard to argue the actuall effect no matter who said it.
All politicians have to do is stir the pot and dangle a carrot and crap like this will continue indefinately.