Headlines

Mickey Kaus

Unions: Dems duck the big question

Recent experience–e.g. in the auto industry, where two of the three big unionized firms went broke and required baiouts, while non-union firms are thriving–makes it especially hard to argue that the Wagner Act still contributes to the material well-being of the vast mass of Americans. Is there a Democrat who argues with a straight face that unionization makes firms more competititve? Who points to highly efficient unionized firms that are beating non-union rivals? Union defenders used to make those arguments. You don’t see them much anymore.

Today’s left-centered Web pundits increasingly don’t even try. Instead they deploy a variety of evasions, which have been on vivid display in the debate following Michigan’s adoption–by a fair vote of a fairly elected legislature–of “right to work.”

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The questions I want answered is, “Why aren’t the media covering the violence?” “Why are the unions so violent?”

When are we going to have a “national dialogue” on the violence perpetuated by unions?

davidk on December 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM

are

davidk on December 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Unions are sacrosanct. Thou shalt not speak ill of the unions./rats.

OldEnglish on December 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If unions want to do some good in the world, and help American workers in the process, they should concern themselves with labor conditions in China and elsewhere. If they want to do some good in America’s borders they should oppose illegal immigration, which undermines the American workforce, especially the bottom end.

Instead these unions fight about issues that prove they are only interested in their own political power and corruption. They only fight to protect their racket, not to improve the conditions of working Americans.

FloatingRock on December 15, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Is there a Democrat who argues with a straight face that unionization makes firms more competititve?

Sure. Nancy Pelosi can argue anything and her face doesn’t move.

Lightswitch on December 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Today’s left-centered Web pundits increasingly don’t even try [to argue the case for unions]. Instead they deploy a variety of evasions, which have been on vivid display in the debate following Michigan’s adoption–by a fair vote of a fairly elected legislature–of “right to work.”

Mr. Kaus gets it.

One need simply extrapolate this specific example to ALL Leftist pundits, journalists, academics, politicians, entertainers, etc. on ALL Leftist issues to understand and explain the ultimate moral, personal, social, political, and economic bankruptcy and destruction that results from their views.

Simple willful evasion of reality. Did they include this in the new DSM-5 and, more importantly, will it be covered under Obamacare (it would clearly be more cost-effective, owing to the sheer numbers possessing such mental illness, to let the death panels deal with such cases — per Leftist logic which sees individuals as mere sacrifices to the “greater collective good”)?

ShainS on December 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” the judges ruled.

“The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story

davidk on December 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The problem the unions have right now is attempting to portray this as some sort of “union busting” when it isn’t. Nothing in the Michigan law prevents employees from organizing and forming a union. It just means that the union is no longer allowed to fleece collect dues from non-members as a condition of employment.

This is going to be a hard sell and it will become harder if they overreach and continue to come across looking like mobsters who just lost a segment of their market.

crosspatch on December 15, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Is there a Democrat who argues with a straight face that unionization makes firms more competititve? Who points to highly efficient unionized firms that are beating non-union rivals? – Mickey Kaus

Because we’re going to show up at your daughter’s soccer game. That’s why. – Union Thug

Left Coast Right Mind on December 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM

The problem the unions have right now is attempting to portray this as some sort of “union busting” when it isn’t. Nothing in the Michigan law prevents employees from organizing and forming a union. It just means that the union is no longer allowed to fleece collect dues from non-members as a condition of employment.

crosspatch on December 15, 2012 at 6:33 PM

You’re right.

But will the Legacy Media choose to accurately report this, or will they continue to regurgitate Leftist talking points?

visions on December 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM