A Shiver In Republican Indiana
AN INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTA friend forwarded me a link to the web site of the Lunchpail Republicans, a group of my fellow Republicans in Indiana who feel disenfranchised by their party leaders and have decided to do something about it. You can find their site HERE. But, before you click on that link, take a minute to read the rest of this entry and watch the video clip at the bottom.
KINDRED SPIRITS
As I read the information on their site, including the comments and
commentaries they've published and viewed the video clips they've included, I began to feel a kindred spirit with these folks. The reasons they've created this organization rings with much familiarity. They felt disenfranchised by their Republican leaders - very much the way more than a few of us Republicans here in Orange County feel about the way Scott Baugh and his band of merry miscreants are trying to guide the game here. Much of the rhetoric used in Indiana is exactly what is being said here in Orange County - particularly the bogus anti-union claims.TAKE A LOOK AND LET ME KNOW
The site includes several video clips, as you will discover when you visit it. However, I've embedded one that made a big impression on me for your viewing pleasure. I'll look forward to your comments.
Labels: Lunchpail Republicans, OC GOP, Scott Baugh
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 1/25/2012 05:04:00 PM
13 Comments:
Because a group of union members, who happen to be Republican, put together a video challenging right-to-work laws, you actually think that those laws are bad for America? Do you even know what the Taft-Hartley Act is? Do you even know what right-to-work laws are?
"Right-to-work" laws are statutes allowed under provisions of the federal Taft–Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring, which would require the workplace to be a closed shop.
Right to work means no closed shops. FREEDOM from discrimination. FREEDOM to work without belonging to a union. Period. You rail about the undue influence of the local GOP while actually promoting the domination of the AFL/CIO?
The Lunchpail Republicans have a hilarious statement on their website - they want less government - while saying they don't want government interfering in the rights of a union to deprive someone who doesn't want to belong to a union of a living. Forced discrimination against non-union workers.
Way to go Geoff. You may check the R box, but you sure as heck are no conservative.
Thanks for finally clearing that up.
Hilariously ironic that the Lunchpail Republicans want government in the form of right-to-work laws out of their relations with their employers, but demand that government in the form of the National Labor Relations Act be respected!
You just have to LOVE the audacity of the unions! They even fooled you into buying this, Geoff.
Hey, Geoff--
Gosh, m'man, it's one thing to post comments by dissenters, but these two look to me like dissents by commies. There isn't any reason for a state to have a Right-to-Work law if its employers treat their employees fairly; Coors, in Colorado, is a prime example. Old Adolph Coors kept unions out of his plant by treating his people like human beings, and made remarkably good beer until Miller bought his family out.
In California, Gene Haas's machine-tool company is another example. It's known as a good place to work, a place where you make good pay and enjoy working; the bonuses are frequent and not trifling.
Both companies are non-union, with no wreck laws in effect. They are non-union because their owners felt that their people deserved respect. Had they not done so, it is highly probable that unions would have come in and organized. Such organizing is a natural reaction to snotty, elitist attitudes on the part of corporate management.
Understand, I'm not a union man myself. I was given the opportunity to join one in 1964, but politely requested not to; the IUE came in and organized our plant and led the factory workers out on strike, and along with nearly all other members of the professional staff I crossed their picket lines daily. This, not because I'm anti-union, but because I felt the whole IUE strike was unjust and uncalled-for.
We broke the strike.
Right-to-Work laws are an unnecessary and unproductive way to provide a security blanket for corporate executives who are incompetent at their human-relations functions. Such incompetence should not be rewarded in any way, as it probably signals incompetence at the other functions that management is supposed to do... such as ethics, honesty, increasing shareholder value, making money, negotiating, etc.
The hard fact is that Right-to-Work laws are not about freedom for working people but are just one more link in the slave-chains that nitwitted, incompetent management wants to hang on their workforce. Get enough of them in place to bust unions, and there is no incentive for management to treat their people fairly. Foster that lack of incentive, and the only way for the workforce to get fair treatment is by riot, revolution, and ruination.
In other words, Marxism.
Right to work often means that low bidder who has less skilled labor gets the job, or buddy-of-mine gets the job. Sometimes it doesn’t level the playing field, but stacks it toward cronyism.
I don't see a conflict with being a conservative Republican and being at odds with local party leadership of late. They are off on all kinds of tangents that spell big government and reckless handling of taxpayer dollars, yet still won’t open their books for an audit to show members if they've handled the money responsibly.
I was intrigued by the video, it’s very well done. There is some food for thought there. I’d like to keep an open mind and ponder and research a bit on the issues raised, but I do agree the GOP has lost its focus, and we need to get it back.
I find it hilarious that someone who obviously doesn’t know Geoff very well would think he is not conservative just because he doesn’t swallow and regurgitate faux-republican talking points. To most of Geoff’s own comments, this very conservative Republican Gal says, “Hear! Hear!”
Oh good grief...let's trot out the NLRA (Taft-Hartley) to back up our point of view. Seriously? That act came about when the fear was a communist hiding behind every bush (you know McCarthyism...). Taft-Hartley also required union leaders to sign an affidavit that they were not a communist.
I find it interesting that you guys shout "less government control" and "let me enjoy my freedom to..." to the rafters, while you have no compunction against trampling someone else's rights if they don't agree with you.
You want less government intrusion in your life, but you will support the government's ability to prevent a woman's right to chose; a couple's right to marry because you don't agree with their way of life. How can you not see the hypocrisy in that platform?
The Lunch Pail Republicans believe as they do, but since it's not exactly as you believe they can't be "true Republicans". Never mind they support the 2nd amendment, smaller government, and individual liberties. That's the problem with our party system and the narrow minded people who so fervently support a singular party based on rhetorical belief. You see, we do have the freedom of choice. To choose the positions in one party or another's platform that edify our individual belief systems. We should all become more a la carte in our political points of view. When you look at all the positions a party pushes, be a skeptic, not follower.
Terry, Robin, Other Mike - please explain how any law that allows a workplace to unionize in a manner that makes union membership and payment of dues mandatory as a condition of employment is compatabile with the very same values that the Lunchpail Republicans claim to hold?
They aren't, in fact there is a total disconnect.
You cannot have it both ways - demand that government stay out of the employer-employee relationship with regard to right-to-work laws AND demand that government interfere in the employer-employee relationship by enshrining unions with the pwer to prevent non-union members from employment.
You can play hide the ball with the arguments about safety and quality all you want, those issues have been addressed by federal/state laws and regulations and the private sector.
Right-to-work laws are very simple and 100% consistent with the principles of limited government, conservatism and individual liberty.
They strip away the discriminatory powers granted to unions by the government and prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.
Again - Terry, Robin, Other Mike - please explain how right to work laws are bad and how opposing them in any way reflects Republican values and ideals.
They make union membership optional, not mandatory.
Just a quick note that I and my friends LOVE the OCGOP and are thankfull that they exist. Without them this place would be overrun with anarchists, illegal aliens, communists, liberals, anti dentites,morons, idiots and wimps. Fight on !
Republican values........Union dues are not mandatory now for any member of the OCEA. I can't speak for the public safety association.(union)
Repeat,....Our city employees do not pay ANY "mandatory" fees.
Gericault, you're correct, and I have no problem with our employee associations or the OCEA representing our employees, as long as those who do not wish to be members are treated with respect, are not discriminated against by members and given equal rights by management.
My only complaint regarding the employee associations and OCEA are the multiyear MOUs and the city's inability to expand or contract its workforce - and the city council shares the responsibility there.
The city's inability to expand or contract the workforce?
You may want to read those MOUs again, you missed about 20 pages.... the council didn't have any problem with the layoffs a few years ago (contraction) or with hiring their big dollar consultants (expansion).
To Thanks:
You write “Right to work means no closed shops. … FREEDOM to work without belonging to a union.”
As I understand it, in an “Open shop” a union can bargain with management and obtain contracts that apply to its members. I also understand that a nonmember will get the same wages and benefits as a member.
The latter doesn’t sound fair to me. If members pay dues to get the services of the union, then it’s only fair that nonmembers shouldn’t get a free ride; they should have to bargain individually with management for their wages and benefits just as the union did.
I also understand that management always pays nonmembers the same wages and benefits as union members. I’ve never heard an argument to justify the nonmembers getting the free ride. With my cynical hat on, I can guess that management does this to weaken a worker’s need to join the union; the goal being to impoverish and eventually kill the union.
Can anyone roll out any other, less cynical arguments?
"don't mess with me"...I'm going to go out on a limb and say the place is filled with idiots and morons. Your previous comment is evidence of it. What is an "anti-dentite"? Someone who doesn't like teeth or dentists? Iime how you throw in "liberals" with all the rest you hold in disdain. As if someone's political views alone are enough to dislike or dismiss them. Perhaps like the color of their skin too. I suppose that shows the content of the OCGOP and why you and your friends "LOVE" it so much.
Well and rightly said, Mr. Egan.
Post a Comment
<< Home