Nathan Newman wrote:
> How about Clinton's ergonomics standards, which Bush and the GOP Congress
> eliminated?
-Ergonomics? The grand vision of organizing all the workers in -society has been reduced to the lagniappe of ergonomic standards? - What happened to universal health care, which is something that - Clinton promised but didn't deliver?
Ah, change the subject from supporting labor rights, since you can't defend your position. BTW the ergonomics standards were an insurance system; anyone injured was essentially entered into a federal workers comp system that covered their medical costs, one reason the rightwing hated the bill so much.
> How about the prohibition of permanent striker replacements, which
Clinton
> and almost all the Democrats supported, but was filibustered by GOP
> Senators?
-This obviously didn't pass, so it can't be counted as an achievement. -I can promise everybody an egalitarian society next week, but it's -just talk unless I deliver.
I see- so unless Clinton can magically create 60 pro-labor Senators, by your definition he can't be any different from a Republican, who is actively trying to block the same legislation Clinton was promoting.
> 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).
-The NLRB? Are you serious? One of the primary ways that organized labor -is disciplined by the government? And one of the contributing factors to -workers viewing union contracts as cheap insurance policies? -Appointing officials to some government agency is hardly visionary.
Ah- again, avoiding the subject; or maybe you are arguing that pro-labor policies must be like your own, rhetorical but empty of content?
> It's hard to think of an issue where the parties differ more than on the
> right of unions to organize.
It's the same old story, the Republicans are transparent about their contempt for workers while the Democrats sabotage labor for the ruling class. The quality of life for workers continued its decline during the Clinton years. Clinton and the Democrats didn't do squat for workers.
> 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?
-Let me see if I can rehash this for you...the Democratic candidate jumps -through the big union's hoops every four years, but when it comes time -for them to deliver, they opt for continuing policies that are favorable -to the ruling class.
Yada, yada, yada.
-- Nathan Newman