SEIU Uses Death Of MLK To Push Pro Union Adgenda

[Tom]

So, the black workers were NOT in a union?

The union couldn't represent the black workers?

Yet, it looks like the city (or whatever) was in talks with union about the workers' wages etc.

I really don't get it. A union that doesn't exist for black city workers who aren't in a union is negoiating with the city for black workers it doesn't represent? WTH?

Fern

It says in black and white in the newspaper article I quoted for you that the city refused to recognize the union as the exclusive representative of the workers, which is the definition of collective bargaining.

The mayor talking about not giving a pay raise is not collective bargaining.

Whether you think there was collective bargaining, or me thinking there wasn't, isn't really at all relevant.

Just facts-

The workers went on strike because they wanted to be represented by the union in negotiations.
MLK went there. If you think he went there to stop the workers from being represented by the union, then go ahead and think that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Get real. The votes in the House are irrelevant, the issue was getting it through the Senate. If you know how the Senate works, you know that the only party that could even bring it to a vote were the Democrats.

I guess you think it's ok for a restaurant to not serve blacks, or a hotel not let black guests get a room, because that's the compromise you think is reasonable.

Rand Paul came right out and said it to win his Senate seat. Shucks- he didn't even resort to the coded racism and dog whistle politics so common among repubs today.

It was clear back then and it's clear today that MLK regarded the fight against racism as part of a larger class struggle that's been waged for hundreds of years- the war against working people perpetrated from the top down. Racism was just a tool of the elite, one that kept people with common interests from banding together to take power in a democracy. That hasn't changed-- it's still what all the raving on the right is about- "values", "welfare queens", "law and order", "illegals", "defense of marriage", so forth and so on. Wedge issues, designed to create a classic Straussian "Us vs Them" mentality they can exploit to maintain and enhance their relative power.

Obviously, it still works, maybe always will, humanity being what we are...

 

[DCal430]

SEIU is my union, an it is god awful. Their local union heads live in lavish houses that are fully paid for by the union members and fairshare members, plus they get big 6 figure salaries with huge pensions. What is worst is these people aren't even democratically elected. We have little say in who runs the union.

 

[Jhhnn]

SEIU is my union, an it is god awful. Their local union heads live in lavish houses that are fully paid for by the union members and fairshare members, plus they get big 6 figure salaries with huge pensions. What is worst is these people aren't even democratically elected. We have little say in who runs the union.

Get you bullshit story straight- "my union" & "their local union heads"?

I mean, if you're gonna be a shill, at least do a credible job, study PJ's methods...

 

[DCal430]

Get you bullshit story straight- "my union" & "their local union heads"?

I mean, if you're gonna be a shill, at least do a credible job, study PJ's methods...

It is my union. I work for the government, and I am represented by SEIU. SEUI has multiple local union. Their refers to all of the local union, and not just mine.

 

[Steeplerot]

MLK was a Socialist killed on the way to a Union rally by a white racist southerner Democrat (a modern Republican). Simple as that. Don't like it too bad.

The right can take a leap.

“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” -Limbaugh

MLK would have called you idiots out in seconds flat.

 

[Zebo]

I wish MLK was president instead of 0. Probably one of the greatest men to ever live and did it all before 33. I think the bankers killed him like with JFK. Ever since pols know better than to step out of line.

 

[Zebo]

Were they anti civil rights, anti worker, and anti union?

Right would make freedom argument in all three cases.

Shop owner has freedom to keep negros or whomever else out.
Boss has freedom to hire and fire whomever whenever.
Owner doesnt have to negotiate with a collective and should have freedom to fire them all should they form a collective.

 

[Steeplerot]

"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped."
-MLK

I wish MLK was here to call them out also Zebo for twisting his legacy. But we know how they deal with criticism. Reactionaries argue with a gun out of lack of logical contribution.

 

[ProfJohn]

MLK was a Socialist killed on the way to a Union rally by a white racist southerner Democrat (a modern Republican). Simple as that. Don't like it too bad.

The right can take a leap.

“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” -Limbaugh

MLK would have called you idiots out in seconds flat.

Rush never said that quote.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=49546

Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read on the net.

 

[thraashman]

Rush never said that quote.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=49546

Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read on the net.

Rush is a racist, monstrous, misguided asshole, you know a conservative. But he's not a complete idiot, so I would've had trouble believing he'd said this on air even before this link.

 

[CitizenKain]

So the Democrats switched to Republicans. Aren't people allowed to come to thier senses?

Well, if you are a racist its good to know that the Republican party will always be there to back you.

 

[Tom]

"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped."
-MLK

I wish MLK was here to call them out also Zebo for twisting his legacy. But we know how they deal with criticism. Reactionaries argue with a gun out of lack of logical contribution.

Thanks. Hopefully this puts a period on one of the two idiotic directions this thread has taken.

 

[Throckmorton]

Right would make freedom argument in all three cases.

Shop owner has freedom to keep negros or whomever else out.
Boss has freedom to hire and fire whomever whenever.
Owner doesnt have to negotiate with a collective and should have freedom to fire them all should they form a collective.

Exactly. It's pretty damn obvious that MLK was on the left and the anti-union anti-civil rights segregationists were on the right.

 

[werepossum]

Get real. The votes in the House are irrelevant, the issue was getting it through the Senate. If you know how the Senate works, you know that the only party that could even bring it to a vote were the Democrats.

I guess you think it's ok for a restaurant to not serve blacks, or a hotel not let black guests get a room, because that's the compromise you think is reasonable.

The Democrats were the only party that could bring it to a vote because the Democrats killed every Republican- OR Democrat-sponsored civil rights bill. Only a perfect idiot could find this a credit to the Democrats and, perfection being rare, I strongly suspect you are merely a garden variety idiot intentionally if poorly trying to warp history to further your left wing agenda. (If I'm wrong about you and you actually are a perfect idiot, um, congratulations?) These little gems

the dixiecrats were still there, Democrat, and future Republican, Strom Thurmond, was the leader of the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. dixiecrats was a nickname for Democrats with a particular agenda.

Not all Democrats voted for it, but a majority did.

Did a majority of Republicans vote for it ??

You're inaccurate bout the Republican's role in passing the Civil Rights Act. They went along with it and some played a role in defeating the filibuster. But they did not advocate for it, they did not fight for it, they were not the impetus for getting it done.

You could argue they didn't think it was necessary, that the 14th Amendment was enough, but you shouldn't try to rewrite history.

strongly argue that you are merely a garden variety idiot trying to rewrite history for political benefit. You should be willing to admit that the 1875 Civil Rights Act was a Republican bill struck down by activist Democrat judges and that up until the 1964 CRA, Republicans had proposed, and Democrats blocked or tried to block, every significant civil rights bill. That the Democrats eventually, almost a century later, got around to making illegal the same behavior that Republicans had been fighting against for over a century, does not change that fact. (For the record, Russell, a life-long staunch Democrat, was the leader of the filibuster as all contemporary reportage makes abundantly clear, Thurmon was merely one of the gang, notable only for being the ONLY filibustering Democrat to later switch to the Republican party. A larger majority of Republicans voted for it than did Democrats. And the Republicans did not think the 14th Amendment was sufficient protection, the Democrat judges striking down the Republican 1875 Civil Rights Act did so under grounds that the federal government did not have the power under the 14th Amendment to give itself such powers. Only an idiot takes the position that one party is always right and the other party is always and then tries to warp reality to fit that view.)

The compromise on which the swing vote Republicans insisted was basically that the federal government not sue on behalf of any individual who had not first used his state remedies, nor deny nor remove government contracts from any company with claims of discrimination. Since states with non-discrimination laws were overwhelmingly Northern, this protected businesses in Republican areas and penalized businesses in Democrat areas, particularly those businesses in violation of the new law but potentially any business with an aggrieved black employee. It had nothing to do with public accommodation and made no significant changes, which is why Democrats at the time crowed that Republicans had been tricked. They were not tricked; Republicans got most of what they wanted - again, a revival of the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875 couched in interstate commerce clothing - plus a competitive advantage for their states' businesses.

 

[werepossum]

Were they anti civil rights, anti worker, and anti union?

Fulbright at least was as enthusiastic a communist as one could be without declaring. His defense of the USSR's every action was a great embarrassment to the Democrat Party, and his was the influence that sent Bill Clinton into the USSR to study. He was also anti union, anti civil rights, arguably anti worker. Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd were similar, though not nearly as out-spoken on behalf of the Communists. Personally I consider Communism to be anti union, anti civil rights, and anti worker, but not everyone agrees. I also consider the concept that every man is equal to be a fundamental conservative principle, one of the great differences with progressive ideology which teaches that government has not only the right but also the duty to decide who is equal and who needs a boost or a slap based on skin color.

EDIT: TheRed is right though about MLK, he certainly had socialist tendencies. I don't find that surprising. When you are unable to compete, whether through discrimination or through your own inability, socialism is always going to look good.

 

[Tom]

The Democrats were the only party that could bring it to a vote because the Democrats killed every Republican- OR Democrat-sponsored civil rights bill. Only a perfect idiot could find this a credit to the Democrats and, perfection being rare, I strongly suspect you are merely a garden variety idiot intentionally if poorly trying to warp history to further your left wing agenda. (If I'm wrong about you and you actually are a perfect idiot, um, congratulations?) These little gems

strongly argue that you are merely a garden variety idiot trying to rewrite history for political benefit. You should be willing to admit that the 1875 Civil Rights Act was a Republican bill struck down by activist Democrat judges and that up until the 1964 CRA, Republicans had proposed, and Democrats blocked or tried to block, every significant civil rights bill. That the Democrats eventually, almost a century later, got around to making illegal the same behavior that Republicans had been fighting against for over a century, does not change that fact. (For the record, Russell, a life-long staunch Democrat, was the leader of the filibuster as all contemporary reportage makes abundantly clear, Thurmon was merely one of the gang, notable only for being the ONLY filibustering Democrat to later switch to the Republican party. A larger majority of Republicans voted for it than did Democrats. And the Republicans did not think the 14th Amendment was sufficient protection, the Democrat judges striking down the Republican 1875 Civil Rights Act did so under grounds that the federal government did not have the power under the 14th Amendment to give itself such powers. Only an idiot takes the position that one party is always right and the other party is always and then tries to warp reality to fit that view.)

The compromise on which the swing vote Republicans insisted was basically that the federal government not sue on behalf of any individual who had not first used his state remedies, nor deny nor remove government contracts from any company with claims of discrimination. Since states with non-discrimination laws were overwhelmingly Northern, this protected businesses in Republican areas and penalized businesses in Democrat areas, particularly those businesses in violation of the new law but potentially any business with an aggrieved black employee. It had nothing to do with public accommodation and made no significant changes, which is why Democrats at the time crowed that Republicans had been tricked. They were not tricked; Republicans got most of what they wanted - again, a revival of the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875 couched in interstate commerce clothing - plus a competitive advantage for their states' businesses.

I don't appreciate being called an idiot. Did I say something that contradicts the things in your post ?

I never said the Democrats were solely responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What I REFUTED was the original misrepresentation that "the Democrats" filibustered it, implying the Republicans were solely resonsible for it's passage.

And that was my only original point. Do you disagree about that ? Do you think LBJ, Mansfield, and the Democrats who voted against the filibuster played no role in it's passage ?

I don't disagree with what you say about the 100 years of history, during which some of the Democrats in Congress were responsible for maintaining an awful state of affairs. And I would say the Republicans had a better record, particularly the closer you are to the Civil War.

It might be true that the only senator who changed parties was Strom Thurmond, but there were others, House members, governors, future office holders. Point being the so-called Southern Democrats left the party, at least partly over things like Civil Rights, although there were certainly other things, these were, generally speaking, conservative Democrats who didn't approve of things like student protests of Vietnam, or other causes that the liberal wing of the Democrats did support.

 

[werepossum]

I don't appreciate being called an idiot. Did I say something that contradicts the things in your post ?

I never said the Democrats were solely responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What I REFUTED was the original misrepresentation that "the Democrats" filibustered it, implying the Republicans were solely responsible for it's passage.

And that was my only original point. Do you disagree about that ? Do you think LBJ, Mansfield, and the Democrats who voted against the filibuster played no role in it's passage ?

I don't disagree with what you say about the 100 years of history, during which some of the Democrats in Congress were responsible for maintaining an awful state of affairs. And I would say the Republicans had a better record, particularly the closer you are to the Civil War.

It might be true that the only senator who changed parties was Strom Thurmond, but there were others, House members, governors, future office holders. Point being the so-called Southern Democrats left the party, at least partly over things like Civil Rights, although there were certainly other things, these were, generally speaking, conservative Democrats who didn't approve of things like student protests of Vietnam, or other causes that the liberal wing of the Democrats did support.

I specifically pointed out the things you said that are unarguably wrong. I don't take issue with your position as posed in this post though. Democrats can take some of the credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, certainly, as long as you admit that the Democrats were also the only force preventing these things from being enacted decades earlier. Being a perennial minority party, the Republicans could pass nothing until at least a slim majority of Democrats got on board, and since Republicans never enjoyed the kind of super majority the Democrats often had, Republicans could never have passed another Civil Rights Act without Democrats even when they briefly held both chambers because the Democrats could (and did) filibuster such bills, so the Republicans were certainly not solely responsible for passing this Act.

You can also point out that the Democrats as a party were probably ready to pass these measures considerably earlier; as Craig pointed out, it was almost entirely the Southern Democrats that opposed civil rights measures. But it can't be stated enough that Republicans had pressed for these measures, against Democrat opposition, for decades.

 

[Tom]

I specifically pointed out the things you said that are unarguably wrong

You quoted 3 posts of mine. I'm not going to requote them.

1. the first one. I said Thurmond was the filibuster leader, you say it was Russell.

If I was wrong on that, I'm an idiot ?

2. The 2nd one I asked a question.

If I ask a question, I'm an idiot ?

3. The 3rd one I'll give you I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[werepossum]

You quoted 3 posts of mine. I'm not going to requote them.

1. the first one. I said Thurmond was the filibuster leader, you say it was Russell.

If I was wrong on that, I'm an idiot ?

2. The 2nd one I asked a question.

If I ask a question, I'm an idiot ?

3. The 3rd one I'll give you I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

Then I apologize for calling you an idiot. I apparently assumed more than you intended.

 

[Tom]

Then I apologize for calling you an idiot. I apparently assumed more than you intended.

Thanks. btw, my posts are usually based on how I remember things, or something I've seen online. I expect if I'm wrong somebody will post and correct me.