[lbo-talk] A dimes bit of difference and then some...

[R]

At 02:25 PM 8/16/2004, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chuck0" <chuck at mutualaid.org>
>-Right to organize? The Democrats take organized labor for granted
>-like they take people of color for granted.  I don't recall any
>-national TV addresses by Bill Clinton where he advocated the right
>-to organize. Organized labor made very few advances  during the 8
>-years where a so-called "pro-labor" president was in power.
>
>Chuck, how about Clinton's support for Project Labor Agreements versus
>Bush's banning them for federally-funded construction projects?
>
>How about Clinton's ergonomics standards, which Bush and the GOP Congress
>eliminated?
>
>How about the prohibition of permanent striker replacements, which Clinton
>and almost all the Democrats supported, but was filibustered by GOP
>Senators?
>
>How about Clinton's appointment of pro-labor officials to the NLRB, such as
>chairman William Gould and its counsel, Fred Feinstein?  (which led to
>recognition of the right of grad unions to organize, which the Bush NLRB
>has just reversed).
>
>Or Clinton's ban on the federal governmnet using union-busting contractors,
>rules Reagan-appointed judges struck down?
>
>It's hard to think of an issue where the parties differ more than on the
>right of unions to organize.
>
>Kerry has essentially endorsed the whole AFL-CIO labor law agenda.  Why
>doesn't that count as reason for any labor person to support him?
>
>Nathan Newman

kerry's trying to get elected.  he's also endorsed the war in iraq.  and 
several other things you'll allegedly be opposing him on once you've done 
your best to get him elected.   his endorsements aren't worth doo-doo 
except for those favoring business interests.  and the ones he doesn't make 
public.

nathan, you conveniently forget NAFTA, a "free trade" bipartisan effort the 
republicans pushed for years and clinton signed into law.   the  unions and 
the people are thrown crumbs when the loaf -- and the entire bakery -- goes 
to business.  this is the democratic party, and has been for decades.  the 
democrats grease the pole where the republican's don't.

the fact the democrats are less hostile to labor doesn't make them 
pro-labor or pro-union.  they have to put on some kind of act because they 
take large amounts of union donations.

it's impossible to conceive of a party controlled by major corporate 
contributors as being pro-labor.  do you ever think of how much money 
corporations are donating to the democrats, and how much they subsidized -- 
and lobbied at -- the recent convention?   do you consider corporate 
interests want something for their money?   unions, populated for years 
with reagan democrats and lead by CEOs, can compete with that?

R