Marvin Gandall wrote:
>How many people on this list, for example, many of them aging
>professionals - myself included - have an immediate need for government
>support for pre-school education, children's health care, a ban on
>compulsory overtime, leave to recover from household violence, unsafe day
>labour, union lockout rights and wage rates, etc. Some do, but most don't.
-Yeah, and it'd be nice if the Democrats actually had such an agenda.
Doug, "the Democrats" don't exist as a singular entity.
What is true is that Democratic politicians, when they have control of states like Illinois, or California a few years ago, pass a slew of progressive legislation.
I didn't even list things like Illinois passing a law that banned temp agencies from using strikebreakers, because the law was struck down by the courts. But the legislature was bending over backwards to push against what was legal under federal law to push pro-labor legislation.
What is clear is that the legislation passed in Illinois would not be passed by a GOP-run state. So why isn't that enough to justify strong preference by unions and other progressives for electing Dems?
Nathan Newman