Skip to main content

Romney hates unions

To amplify a bit:

  1. Right to work No rights at work laws are terrible for workers.
  2. Mitt Romney is angry at the National Labor Relations Board because, under President Obama, it has been fulfilling its mission of upholding labor law. Sometimes that means companies get in trouble for illegally firing workers or otherwise retaliating against them for exercising their rights. When George W. Bush's NLRB was routinely favoring business, Republicans were not so outraged.
  3. Can you say "race to the bottom"?
  4. The people of Ohio made clear how they felt about Senate Bill 5.
  5. Union leaders get labeled as "having no interest in a constructive relationship with management" when they lead fights against wage and pension cuts, against making it easier to fire workers or cut their hours—in general, when they try to deny corporations the total control over workers' lives they want.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 02:28 PM PDT.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My grandmother was a "carder" in the cotton mills (20+ / 0-)

    Started when she was 12 (in 1911). She worked from 6am to 5pm in a small airless room packed with cotton fibers from the work she was doing. There were no supplied masks (they wore rags around the nose and mouth as primitive masks). The temperature was regularly >90F and they got 15 minutes for lunch and timed "bathroom" breaks at other times.

    These conditions don't exist any more in most developed countries because generations of people sacrificed to obtain their worker rights.

    And the 1% are just as keen to roll those rights back.

  •  They really want to go back to the old days. (17+ / 0-)

    When workers had no rights. Yeah, my current employer would just love that for us on the dock.

    I write the series Confessions of a Retail Worker here on DK. It documents my life in a non-unionized workplace.

    by Lightbulb on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 03:03:01 PM PDT

    •  and Sedan Chairs too! (13+ / 0-)

      He opposed the GM bailout so he doesn't like cars much.

      He wants to de-fund Amtrak so he doesn't like trains much.

      You know what's left?  Private jets, and sedan chairs* on the ground.  

      Mitt Romney: riding a sedan chair into the future!

      ----

      * Sedan chair:  An enclosed seat mounted on two poles (left and right), carried by a person in front and a person in back.  Do an image search and you'll see what it looks like.  Typically used by royalty, popes, and so on.  

      Carrying one of those things is ferociously hard work, and it's generally considered a demeaning occupation, roughly similar to "having a powerful guy riding on your back as if you're a horse."  

      We can make that the symbol of his campaign!

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 03:12:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans are anti-empiricists (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        liz dexic, cocinero

        who will deny the reality of something staring them in the face.

        They are immoralists because they practice intellectual bad faith with glee and have made "truth" the whore of power.

        They are also nihilists, because they are willing to destroy anything that contradicts the world as they wish it to be.

        "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

        by psnyder on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:22:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is why we want Mitt as the candidate: (14+ / 0-)

    For once in a long time the economic conditions are such that the class war is on the table.

    Mitt has zero appeal as a religious rightie: he mouths the necessary phrases, but unlike Santorum he is not a True Believer, and religious righties think Mormons aren't Christian enough for them.

    So with Mitt it all comes down to the class war.

    And with him saying shit like the above, and all the rest of it, the choice is really really clear.

    What he will probably do is install a religious rightie as his VP candidate, so that'll muddy the water a bit, but none the less.

    This year, we fight the class war.

    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 03:03:47 PM PDT

    •  Yes. And we should hold off. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liz dexic, wishingwell, profewalt

      I want the Anti -Middle Class , super wealthy candidate to go up against President Obama.

      I don't think we should attack Romney until he is officially the GOP choice.  

      Here is my fear.  We as a country have been brainwashed by every single teeny, tiny church, and every medium sized church, and every huge church.  We are a nation of brainwashed idiots.  We are a bunch of lunatics that really do think religion is the number one reason to elect a president.    It's not who is the smartest, or who has the best plan for us.  Nope.  It's who can out Christian who.

      I fear there are more "Christians" so brainwashed by religion that they will actually vote for someone who does not want them to earn a living wage, or have health insurance, or to make the super wealthy pay their fare share of taxes, or stop our schools from replacing science with teachings from a comic book.

      I fear that Rick Santorum, is more of a threat to President Obama than Mitt Romney.  I fear that religion is so poisonous that the "Christians" will ignore fact, and vote how ever their "church" tells them to vote.

      And Mitt Romney won't get the super Christian vote. "Shh, he's not a "real Christian"  hehehe

      " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

      by EarTo44 on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:13:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I still don't think "class" is the (0+ / 0-)

      right word.  

      classic = good

      with class = good

      classless = crude

      The Senate is divided into classes and so are schools.  When reality undermines the implication it's not good.  Class war is a useless concept.
      Besides, war is a contest between relative equals.  Otherwise it's aggression -> invasion -> extermination.

      What the 1% are after is dominion for the financial sector.  It's a sectarian venture.  Although "sectarian" is often associated with ideologies, the melding of religious sectarians with financial sectarians actually seems to be embodied in the Mormon church.
      The church of mammon collecting money for the greater glory of god.

      People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

      by hannah on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:55:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This diary puts into a nutshell why (17+ / 0-)

    I vote Democratic.

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:16:25 PM PDT

  •  Unions ARE Faction checking faction & Madison (4+ / 0-)

    I've gotten very passionate about this issue.  The right is very wrong regarding unions.  

    To me, unions represent one faction, workers, keeping another faction, executives & managers in check.  Even beyond that simple analysis, they apply internal pressure for an organization to be ethical.  

    The other part of this equation is that money is a big part of it.  It takes many workers to keep a few wealthy elites in check and acting not only ethical but also in the best interest of the owners.  Unions also play a roll in make sure that the organization continues as a going concern - a functional business.  

    Republicans get too focused on profits and don't see the big picture.  Owners are many times the same executives and managers.  However, when all three are distinct entities and the goal is LONG TERM sustainability of the organization, the owners can more easily be shown how the Union is in their interest.  You can do it in any scenario but the owner/executive and owner/manger are less likely to be able to move the focus off of short term profits.  When this is the case that is all that is assured, SHORT TERM PROFITS.  

    The labor relations board is to me a quicker way to bring balance back to an off balance organization faster.  

    The republicans are so deluded that they claim to know the founding fathers and they wouldn't know one if it .... anyway you get my drift.  

    Faction checking faction needs to happen even in business because it reflects so quickly in politics.

    Madison needs to be shoved down their throats until they stop this unproductive assault on liberty.  They are the ones in violation of the founders intent.  

    Note:  James Madison, authored Federalist No. 10

    Federalist No. 10 (Federalist Number 10) is an essay written by James Madison and the tenth of the Federalist Papers, a series arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    They say there are strangers who threaten us, ... That those who know what's best for us | Must rise and save us from ourselves. "Witch Hunt" - Neil Ellwood Peart, Canadian lyricist with the band "RUSH".

    by Hualapai on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:03:59 PM PDT

    •  When all the stakeholders are owners ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Friend, profewalt

      I should have added that a very good way to balance owner/executives & owner/managers short sighted focus on profits is for the workers to also be owners - hold stock, own a stake in the organization.  

      You can say that this recession would not have been as deep as it is if more organizations had long term viability as a primary objective and not just short term  & unsustainable profits.  

      They say there are strangers who threaten us, ... That those who know what's best for us | Must rise and save us from ourselves. "Witch Hunt" - Neil Ellwood Peart, Canadian lyricist with the band "RUSH".

      by Hualapai on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:23:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not So Much; Then Everybody Shares the Incentives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cocinero

        for short term management.

        We already proved the way to incentivize long-term viability for the only half century America's economy was ever good for the people. It requires steep progressive individual taxes and business taxes that prevent top management and owners becoming rich for life after a few months' work, tying their long term interests to the long term interests of their enterprises and of society.

        There's a long laundry list of beneficial effects of that policy, including allowing a diverse economy to flourish instead of only a few jackpot-generating sectors like finance, because the jackpots can't be taken home. And if they're left in the business, the business has to pay them in income taxes and windfall-profit taxes. So the business is willing to spend more on suppliers, on labor & benes, and on long term re-investment.

        The 401k program was peddled in part as giving workers a stake in company ownership. That was the era when the masses surrendered their wealth back to the 1% again.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:19:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I agree entirely (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Friend, cocinero, lcbo

    with the connection being drawn here between unions and the middle class. And Romney clearly wants to hasten the demise of both. But unions and the middle class are already in decline. This process began in earnest during the Carter Administration.  Simply not speeding up the process isn't enough.  We need Democrats at both the federal and state levels to propose union / labor strengthening policies, as well as macroeconomic policies to ensure full employment and job security.  We need legislative proposals and independent executive actions.

    Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity. @DavidKaib

    by David Kaib on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 05:44:35 AM PDT

    •  Actually it really accelerated during the Reagan (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion, IreGyre

      administration more so than any other administration...the anti labor unions, the Unions are bad and anti American meme that Reagan pushed.

      •  The strike with the air traffic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, ahumbleopinion

        controllers. Reagan broke it, and the right cheered him on!

        In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

        by vcmvo2 on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 07:51:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The right wasn't the only (0+ / 0-)

          ones to cheer him on.  Jonathan Alter, for example, cheered him on as well. The idea that unions (especially public unions) were a problem was more widespread at the time

          Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity. @DavidKaib

          by David Kaib on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 12:37:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It accelerated then but (0+ / 0-)

        it started when Dems controlled the WH and Congress. There were also roots for the anti-union rhetoric among big city Democratic mayors in the 70s.

        Not saying the parties are the same - but the bipartisan shift that happened needs to be understood.

        Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity. @DavidKaib

        by David Kaib on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 12:36:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Finally! Romney is actually being himself. (6+ / 0-)

    If there is one thing that vulture capitalists like Romney hate, it's workers with leverage.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:02:54 AM PDT

  •  a simple change (5+ / 0-)

    why doesn't every democratic politician and pundit refer to "Right To Work" States as "No Rights At Work" States

    This is type of messaging discipline that Democrats always seem to lack

    •  The Democratic Party is Also a Conservative Party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      profewalt

      and doesn't fight most of the conservative memes. Their base is conservative moderate swing-voters who they don't want to upset with hippie-talk. It's been this way for 35 years, and the track record of where each Democratic presidency and congress has left the people economicallyl, compared to their condition when the term began, would show that if looked at overall.

      The party only includes some progressives, and that's why apart from the immediate pending election, progressives need to spend the bulk of their political energy working on changing the Democratic Party.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:22:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there are better options than using the term (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2

        Right To Work, which sounds like a damned good thing, especially if you have no job. That's why the right frames it with that language.

        Best just to eliminate the phrase altogther. No even to get cute  with it using clever turns of phrase.

        Fact: next time you're at the coffee shop or grocery store ask the cashier if she'd support a ca.ndidate who

        "supports a federal right to work" (the exact phrase this pathetic info graphic uses in line one).

        See what she says.

        I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

        by mdmslle on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:54:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Sweatshop States" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, profewalt

      Romney 2012 - Standing For Whatever Polls Say Well Since The Dawn Of Man

      by kitebro on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:40:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are so right about that, it makes me so mad (0+ / 0-)

      that the MSM makes Right to Work seem like a good thing for workers....ugh.

    •  Or the "Right to Work for Less" states. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IreGyre

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 08:14:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Speaking of the Right to Work, (0+ / 0-)

      has there been any push back in Indiana from their new Right to Work law?

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 08:15:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Wait until this is needed. (0+ / 0-)

    Don't break out the good stuff now.

    Shhhhhhhhh.

    Soon.   Not yet.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:06:10 AM PDT

  •  Clearly, Romney has read Marx... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and understands the inherent leverage the workers have with regards to production. Must be why he feels so strongly that he has to hamstring them.

    What a tool.

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

    by itsjim on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:08:38 AM PDT

  •  Then he must just HATE the German economic model. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Williston Barrett

    "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

    by psnyder on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:08:59 AM PDT

  •  I can only imagine that Romney's briefings are on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, vcmvo2

    a par with Sarah Palin's:

    1)  "What is this?"
    2)  "Am I for it or against it?"
    3)  "What was that again?"

    Apparently Santorum now really, really wants to Fight Against Pornography. Sorry Rick - that ain't gonna solve your Google Problem.

    by here4tehbeer on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:10:01 AM PDT

  •  Mitt Romney campaign message (4+ / 0-)

    to the working people of America

    "Hi I'm Mitt Romney and I am here to fuck you over."

    "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

    by wxorknot on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:24:31 AM PDT

  •  To the middle-class accurately defined (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phrogge prince, mdmslle

    unions don't matter.  They do, however, have a major impact on the fortunes of the working class, sufficient to cause many people to confuse unionized members of the working class with members of the middle class.  Which is why unions matter.

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:28:25 AM PDT

    •  Oh but unions do matter to middle-class businesses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lcbo

      on Main Street (the few that are left) that are increasingly dependent on working-class customers now that the middle class is shrinking.

      This became apparent in my Midwester community when the high-paying manufacturing jobs fled to right-to-work Southern states. The then rather large and affluent middle class business community dried up--their well-heeled working- class  customers gone with the wind.

  •  Unions allow us to stand up to our boss (3+ / 0-)

    If one of us fights back against when our boss treats us like crap, we get fired.  It's only together that we can stand firm for our rights and our dignity.  

    Romney and the business class are against unions for one reason:  Unions cut into the power of being "the boss".  

    Republicans go on about cost, but it's really the lack of absolute power that bothers them (you can make up cost with pricing).  They want to be the big-shot dick-swinging honcho, making the "tough" decisions without any input (and never taking responsibility when things turn sour). Unions force them to actually give a rat's ass about the people they employ.

    Republicans want autocracy in business, plain and simple.   We've fought really hard these last decades to get autocracy out of our government. Now it's time to get it out of our businesses.

    You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

    by nominalize on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:28:57 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, so many of my friends and husband sadly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nominalize

      are employed in non union jobs and often are terrified they could be fired at any given moment for most anything and have no recourse. I have a friend scared to death to go to work everyday for fear the boss will be in a bad mood and fire him.

      •  It's also important (0+ / 0-)

        to highlight the need to build ourselves up rather than bring others down.

        When some people have union-won protections and others don't, that's a problem.  Some people might feel "my life sucks, why doesn't theirs, too?"  But the solution is to get more protections for those that lack them, not to take them away from those that have fought for them.  

        You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

        by nominalize on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 11:36:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's hard to read these things and not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    think of Gene Hackman's line in Mississippi Burning:

    The rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide.
  •  A little huff and hyperbole (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    profewalt

     On that list of 5, only 2 really concern me, and 1 might, but I don't understand it well enough to know.

    Of the concerns:

    1.  "Right to Work" laws bother me a lot -- but not for the reason they bother you.

    "Right to Work" is actually a limitation on the right to contract, and that's something that should never be done without a damned good reason.  All labor negotiations involve both management and labor.  An exclusive shop should be something that is on the bargaining table -- and the management team should make sure to get fair value for agreeing to it.  Having made that agreement, no law should abridge it.  

    2.  Abolish the NLRB?  A management supporter favors that?  I'm sorry, but if you want secret ballot elections (another place where I am out of step with most kossacks), you HAVE to have a neutral party involved.  You'd have to  be a class A moron to advocate getting rid of the NLRB.

    Don't know how I feel about "prevailing local wage" requirements because I don't know how they work.  I presume that they aren't really about prevailing local wages because it's generally not easy to hire legally documented employees for much less than the prevailing local wage.  More than that, making money on a project is about how much you spend on the project, not how much you pay an individual per hour.  Good people showing up reliably and getting the job done on time tend to be profitable, especially in a world that includes bonuses for finishing on time and under budget.

    As to number 5, it's hyperbolic -- and pointedly ignores, for example, the very constructive relationship between the UAW and the auto makers, but...it's rightish.  Union leaders are beholden to their members, not to the emloyers.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:40:20 AM PDT

    •  i'll explain about prevailing wage as I understan (0+ / 0-)

      it.

      I used to own a contracting company. Some of the work we had was contract work either federal, state or county/city.

      When we worked federal and some state contracts, we had to pay our industrial hygienists the scale rate for the job. That often was a few bucks an hour more than our normal hourly wage. We liked being able to pay them that rate (and yes, we were able to charge a bit more for the contract) and obviously the employees enjoyed working "scale jobs".

      I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

      by mdmslle on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:59:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't understand "scale", except (0+ / 0-)

        that it must be some wage higher than the prevailing local wage.

        Sounds like it's nice for workers on the project, no harm to employers as everybody bidding a contract is subject to the same requirement.  On the other hand, not so nice for workers who are not on the project as they must either pay more taxes or receive fewer services.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 07:09:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  scale is a wage that is predetermined sometimes (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, profewalt, lcbo, dinotrac

          by unions.

          Not every job is a scale job.

          For example, in the entertainment industry (my present digs) there are scale wages for everything from actors to electricians to hair stylists. These productions are called union productions and they pay well. This is why you'll sometimes hear of an A-list star (who could earn many many times the scale rate) work on a production he/she really just LIKES "for scale".

          Of course, not every production is scale. Just as not every job an electrician works is the union rate. The union/scale rate will be higher. BUt not every job is scale. But that doesn't mean he can't earn good money. It just means that the employer offers a rate that isn't predetermined.

          In my former life as the owner of a contracting company, this helped keep bidding competitive and even. You can't have one bidder paying workers 9/hr and another bidder paying workers 29/hr. Well, you could. But requiring everyone to pay out at the same rate eliminates that disparity. Then at that point it's about who offers the most competitive price based on their operations and other variables. It also has the practical effect if making sure your get highly qualified workers. We never had any problem crewing up a scale job with amazingly experienced competent people. Which, mattered a lot since we were dealing with monitoring the removal of hazardous materials.

  •  Right to work = deserve to eat. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    Those who don't do what they're told, will not eat.  Or, as Senator Landrieu put it, "no free lunch."

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:42:18 AM PDT

  •  no offense to Team Truth but this is bad. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero

    At least if the intended audience is regualr people.

    "Right To Work" is framed that way by the right because it SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA. Using that framing without explaining what it means in practical terms for a worker is ineffective.

    Further, I realize they have to use the word UNION in there but with union enrollment at 11% (or less) nationwide, it really should just use the word WORKER.

    I hope they'll have better infographics in the future. This one doesn't work.

    I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

    by mdmslle on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:49:28 AM PDT

  •  this graphic doesn't explain HOW it explain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, cocinero

    WHAT.

    Not the same.

    Do people know what ROGHT TO WORK means and how it effects them?

    Do people even know what the NLRB is and what it does?

    The graphics leans too heavily on the "union" aspects. What about a waitress or a cashier at the local Target or the guy who comes by to fix your toilet? These people aren't union and unionization isn't practical (or even desired) in every work environment. Only a small percentage of Americans are in a union. Further, #4, again, as an example explains WHAT but not HOW IT MATTERS. Better: "Supported a bill in Ohio that made it harder for teachers and firefighters and police to negotiate retirement and health benefits for themselves and their families". NOT: "Supported Ohio's Anti-Union Bill 5 that would have reduced collective bargaining rights..." (WTF does that mean?!)

    I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

    by mdmslle on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 07:07:35 AM PDT

  •  6. THE RIGHT TO DOWNLOAD PORN -- (0+ / 0-)

    -- oh wait -- sorry -- wrong candidate. Not to mention, uh, wrong issue at work. (Nudge nudge, wink wink...)

    :)

  •  In return, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, lcbo

    I think it's only fair to deny him a federal job.

    A specific one.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 08:15:51 AM PDT

  •  Romney is scary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llbear

    but at least his views insure that no union is endorsing republican this time around.

  •  Simplicity...jt (0+ / 0-)

    It's really simple. Anyone who works for a paycheck and votes Republican is too stupid to have a future.

    Part II. Anyone who imagines that the Democrats are more than marginally better, is similarly self-delusional.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site