Don't tell me Obama has just seen the bright light of Unionism

[ThomWV]

There are three "Free Trade Agreements" on the table that President Obama is just itching to sign and each of the three is a US job killer. What in the hell does a speech mean or even a year and a half's worth of recently stimulated-into-existance jobs if agreements that will harm the country for decades to come are being signed today? And for what? So Japan or China buys a few thousand Buicks, so that Korean electronics will float freely across our borders to insure that no such industry springs up in this country.

Screw all this recent "Rah Rah Union" shit. Let's start by scrapping the proposed free trade agreements and then taking the hatchet to the ones we are already in.

[dionysus]

1. if you can't stand him, then don't vote for him. what do you want from us?

:shrug:

[ThomWV]

5. In honesty I want you to see that we Democrats do not have a Democratic President

[dionysus]

8. right. as if we don't notice you campaigning against him on a daily basis.

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

11. beats the hell out of spending each day defending the indefensible

Killed the EPA smog regulations did he? Extended the economy killing Bush Tax Cuts did he? Never stood up a single second for single payer, did he?

[dionysus]

15. bless your little heart.

[WilliamPitt]

35. I know you.

And I know you can do better than that.

[dionysus]

37. touche, Will.

[emilyg]

23. Yes it does. Thank you.

[demwing]

47. Why do you ask a question

if you can't handle the answer?

[BzaDem]

51. Good luck with that. While there will always be some on both sides who will always be unsatisfied

with any candidate the Party elects, the number of such people on the left for this presidency is at a 50 year low point.

[Scuba]

55. I'm neither for nor against Obama. I'm for Democratic principles....

...to earn my support President Obama needs to support Democratic principles. To date, his track record is deplorable.



"Not the Republicans" is just not a catchy campaign slogan.

[mfcorey1]

56. Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! National Speak Up DAy. No crap from Obama bashers. nt

[roguevalley]

58. trumka and hoffa made come to jesus moments for him. they will

pass after election.

[Bluebear]

2. But he's fired up! Ready to go!

[FarLeftFist]

3. Seriously! How about we just free-trade within our borders.

[Brickbat]

4. But he made a great speech!!1!!! He's back! HE REALLY MEANS IT THIS TIME!

[gateley]

6. How do you know he's "just itching to sign" them?

Sincere question -- not trying to start a "discussion" -- I just don't know if he has actually indicated that. Thanks.

[jeff47]

39. Because Obama and his surrogates have been talking about them.

They claim the free trade agreements are an important tool to boost the economy.

[gateley]

44. Thanks - that's what I wanted to know. I wasn't aware of that. nt

[Demit]

7. He's probably back in the White House kicking off those comfortable shoes he bought just for today.

[FarLeftFist]

9. Way too much hyperbole in some posts. Let's all stick to the facts.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Facts trump your false narrative --> "A WTO victory for Obama administration & labor on Labor Day"

China loses WTO appeal against U.S. tire tariffs
GENEVA | Mon Sep 5, 2011 1:52pm EDT

(Reuters) - The United States was entitled to impose extra safeguard duties on imports of Chinese tires, the World Trade Organization's top court said on Monday, upholding a ruling made in December 2010.

The United States imposed the 35 percent duties in September 2009 after the United Steelworkers union complained that surging Chinese imports were hurting U.S. producers.

WTO rules allow members to impose temporary extra tariffs on goods to counter a destabilizing flood of imports.

"This is a tremendous victory for the United States as well as for American workers and manufacturers," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement. "We have said all along that President Obama's decision to impose duties on Chinese tires was fully consistent with our WTO obligations.

"The Obama Administration will continue to fight for U.S. jobs and businesses. We will use our trade laws to stand up for our workers and address harm to them."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x763804

Read about other successes that President Obama has accomplished on behalf of unions while his critics have been endlessly whining:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1881923&mesg_id=1881978

[originalpckelly]

13. US: 1 China:1,000,000

But hey, it's a start.

[ClarkUSA]

17. What President Obama has accomplished on behalf of unions while his critics have been whining -->

FACTS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1881923&mesg_id=1881978

[tblue]

26. I guess there is nothing we can take for granted, is there?

A Democrat imposed safeguards on tires.

I'm surprised that we are supposed to be surprised.

[jeff47]

40. Psst....Read that more carefully.

"WTO rules allow members to impose temporary extra tariffs on goods to counter a destabilizing flood of imports."

So that tariff's gonna go away. It's just gonna take a year or two. Boy that's something to get excited about.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Someone reminded him he actually needs votes to be elected.

He always says fine things, it's the actions that lack.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

21. Like this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012141/-NLRB-issues-three-decisions,-two-of-which-overturn-Bush-era-decisions

[Starry Messenger]

24. Yes, I saw that story and rec'd it when it was posted here.

That's one. Did you see this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103560.html

[Starry Messenger]

25. Or this?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie1c1FGtApdzJ9103dZYzgGBLCqw?docId=fdd973dd84444c059626c73feac7de15

[Starry Messenger]

27. thanks Robb, misfired on that one.

[Robb]

30. Um, we got card check.

NLRB enacted it through regulatory, rather than legislative, means. NLRB has eliminated "secret ballot" challenges, and the requirement that the entire company unionize (instead of picking away division to division, which is historically how organizing works best).

Also, new company owners can't challenge unions' existence at the federal level immediately after becoming owners -- they now have to wait some longish period. Used to be every ownership paper-shuffle would afford another opportunity to disband a union.

These were all adopted on a 3-1 vote from the from the board: that would be one Republican and three Democrats, TWO of whom (Becker and Pearce, former attorneys for AFL-CIO) were recess appointments last year.

[Starry Messenger]

33. I edited, thank you!

[dionysus]

34. but robb, i read here every day how much the administration hates unions, i'm confused now.

;)

[Brickbat]

36. With card check, which case was that?

[Starry Messenger]

38. I'm wondering too.

I would think it would have been big news, and was surprised that the unions hadn't mentioned it. But I was talking on FB in another window and didn't have time to look up more.

[jeff47]

41. Um, no, we didn't.

Card check is not possible under current labor law. The point of card check was to speed the creation of unions, reducing the corporation's ability to fire the 'troublemakers' and intimidate the workers into voting now.

More to the point, elections are still required. The reason it's called "Card Check" is it allowed the workers to simply sign a petition, instead of signing a petition that then leads to an election.

[Starry Messenger]

43. I was talking about EFCA.

I hate to use wiki as a source, but they have a timeline of where we are with that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act#111th_Congress

111th Congress

On March 10, 2009, the bill was introduced in the 111th Congress by Sen. Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts) and Rep. George Miller (Democrat of California). Kennedy described the bill as "a critical step toward putting our economy back on track," while Miller also put the bill in the context of the 2008 economic crisis, declaring, "If we want a fair and sustainable recovery from this economic crisis, we must give workers the ability to stand up for themselves and once again share in the prosperity they help to create."<19>

Although only 41 senators are Republicans, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska) and Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania) announced that they did not support the bill in March 2009.<20> In addition, Blanche Lincoln (Democratic senator for Arkansas) and Thomas Carper (Democratic senator for Delaware) both stated in April that they would not vote for EFCA in its current form.<21><22>

Dianne Feinstein (Democratic senator for California) has also announced that she would prefer to seek alternative legislation. Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated in a meeting with the Missouri Chamber of Commerce that it is unlikely that EFCA would pass in its current incarnation.<23>

On July 7, 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) chose the bill as the first piece of legislation that he would co-sponsor, joining 40 other Democratic senators.<24>

On July 16, 2009, reports were made that Senate advocates proposed dropping the provisions removing the employer's right to demand an extra ballot.<25>

On July 17, 2009, the New York Times reported that in an effort to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a group of key Democratic senators are planning to change the proposed legislation to remove the "card check" provision of the EFCA, which would have allowed unions to be certified solely by majority sign-up.<25>

I'm not sure you are talking about the same thing. The passing of EFCA would be huge. I'm in AFT so I'm sure they'd be sending out emails if something even got started on that again.

[Starry Messenger]

28. Or this one? The "Cadillac Health Care Tax"?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/obama_backs_cadillac_health_pl.html

But the Cadillac tax proposal continues to raffle many Democrats' key union supporters, who say the tax would unfairly affect their people, may of whom have given up wage increases for better health care, and many in the middle class.
The tax proposal has especially stung the Communication Workers of America who commissioned a report arguing against it. This has lead House Democrats to largely oppose the proposal.

[madrchsod]

14. he appointed two dems to the labor board and that`s it

[LWolf]

16. Let's see him back it up by doing just that. nt

[ClarkUSA]

18. Ignoring the actions of this administration again? What Pres. Obama has done for unions -->

FACTS that President Obama's critics would rather ignore:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1881923&mesg_id=1881978

[Historic NY]

19. Sometimes it better to save you breath with this crowd.......

FDR would be excoriated too.

[Bluebear]

52. No he wouldn't. And Obama is no FDR.

[Historic NY]

53. and FDR wasn't a progressive either.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/09/obama-just-as-progressive-as-non-mythical-fdr-1.html

[BzaDem]

54. FDR WAS excoriated at the time by people on the left. (See Huey Long/etc.) n/t

[jeff47]

42. That list is quite pathetic for a Democratic president. (nt)

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. No Obama's never done nothing for Unions

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012141/-NLRB-issues-three-decisions,-two-of-which-overturn-Bush-era-decisions

Try again.

[Edweird]

22. It's bright light of political opportunism - nothing more.

[nashville_brook]

29. +1

[ClarkUSA]

31. Prove it.

[Historic NY]

46. They can't. I'm retired Union & I still vote.

[Edweird]

59. His record speaks for itself.

[Robb]

32. That you just noticed does not make it "recent."

[Better Believe It]

45. Why is President Obama failing to support the postal workers and their fight against union busting?

He failed to mention their struggle in his nice election speech today.

[Historic NY]

48. Actually the postal service is a quasi government agency....

the main fight is with the Republican congress. http://www.apwu.org/index2.htm

Rep. Issa Does It Again!
Spending Taxpayers’ Money to Bash the USPS?

APWU Web News Article 098-2011, Sept. 2, 2011

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who likes to portray himself as a fierce opponent of wasting taxpayers’ money, has created a slick, high-tech Web site that bashes the Postal Service, using – you guessed it – taxpayers’ money.

The Web site, a production of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is intended to generate support for legislation sponsored by Rep. Issa that would destroy the Postal Service as we know it.

H.R. 2309 would close thousands of post offices, shutter hundreds of mail processing facilities, end Saturday mail delivery, and eliminate workers’ collective bargaining rights. In true Washington double-speak, the Web site dedicated to dismantling the nation’s mail system is called “Saving the Postal Service.”

In testimony before the committee on April 5, 2011, APWU President Cliff Guffey pointed out: “This hearing is costing more in tax dollars than the Postal service gets in tax dollars.”

Guffey was intent on demolishing the myth — frequently promoted by Rep. Issa —that the USPS relies on taxpayer support and will soon be in need of a bailout.


The Union supports...this Democratic proposal

On the other hand, H.R. 1351, introduced by Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), would allow the USPS to use the billions of dollars in pension overpayments to meet its financial obligations. It would address the cause of the USPS financial crisis without cutting pay, reducing benefits, eliminating collective bargaining rights, or slashing service. However, word on Capitol Hill is that Rep. Issa is blocking consideration of H.R. 1351. Tell your congressional representative: Oppose H.R. 2309_ or legislation like it — and Support H.R. 1351!

[Bobbie Jo]

50. This will be ignored. nt

[Skittles]

49. he is pimping for votes

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.