As the Democratic presidential candidates jostle for the title of most subservient to the whims of Big Labor, there are some pushback efforts. Not by John McCain, but by independent groups and individuals. On the moribund Colombia free trade agreement, James Baker chides Congress:
As recently as December, Congress displayed the type of bipartisan leadership that Americans desire when it ratified a free trade agreement with Peru that is very similar to the one proposed for Colombia. And yet, this spring, the world is watching to determine if the United States will remain committed to embracing a free-market global economy, or display a growing isolationist attitude that can befuddle and vex our allies around the world.
And what about the pet project of Big Labor–doing away with secret ballot elections in unions–which both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support? Not much from the McCain camp on this one. However, there is a very vivid and funny ad by the business group Coalition for a Democratic Workplace that pushes back on the notion that secret ballots are good enough for politicians but not unions.
What is the lesson here? For a candidate like Barack Obama who rails about special interests (which, in his taxonomy, kill all the good ideas), it might be worth pointing out that helping a democratic ally and promoting free trade and secret ballots are “good ideas.” Which this particular interest group is, through its supplicants in Congress, seeking to kill.
If Big Labor negotiates on behalf employees, then they would have to be subject to charges of discrimination, right? The Republicans, as soon as this is passed, need to find someone with a gripe and sue the hell out of the UAW, or someone, and kill this thing early.
Oh please, let’s hope the Republicans in the Senate mount a filibuster! Come on, nutcases, make my day!
If there’s no statute of limitations then everything is in play. That includes Universities, the arts, the ballet, the symphony orchestra, etc. If you go far enough back every organization discriminated against women and minorities.
The NAACP must have discriminated against women and other minorities at some point.
You’re absolutely right, as usual, John Hartland. A government regulation that will expand the federal payroll while destroying thousands of small businesses is exactly what we need right now.
Come on, Republicans, listen to #4! No guts, no glory!
Rubin once again defends unequal pay, Rubin once again she defends women earning less than men for the same work, Rubin once again defends corporations over people. And to think she used to be a Berkeley radical feminist…. How much are they paying you Jenny?
Alex, the “Rubin used to be a Berkeley radical feminist” record in your abdomen must be skipping. Someone needs to give you a nice kick so the needle will skip to the “torture is un-American” or “Bush’s gulag tactics” groove, because this one has become particularly tiresome.
It’s pretty obvious that John and Alex are not among the employer class who create all Americans’ jobs, so what’s to worry? The only jobs the Democrats are going to “create” are legal staff for lawyers.
Chew on this, contentionistas:
It’s not card check, but almost as much fun.
WASHINGTON, Jan 22 (Reuters) – The new Democratic-led U.S. Senate flexed its expanded muscle on Thursday by overwhelmingly passing a bill to reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it tougher to sue for pay discrimination.
Approved 61-36, the measure is similar to one that Senate Republicans blocked last year, complaining it would lead to an explosion of lawsuits and be a bonanza for trial lawyers.
The legislation is a priority of organized labor, a longtime friend of Democrats, which argues it would give victims of discrimination fair hearings and just compensation.
Remember last week, when Jennifer and Abe and the kids were trying to convince you that Obama does not represent change. Seems like a lot of change, to me.
And if it’s not change, why are they so cross?
This must mean that the Democrat Party can be sued for Jim Crow.