"Do you have to love labor unions to be a good Democrat?"

Or, Do you have to hate unions to be a good Republican?

Michael, I get the cute rhetorical twist there, but, as Kaus shows (and Willie Brown of all people!) criticism of unions doesn't equal hate, Republican or otherwise.

I know, but "Do republicans have to "criticize" unions" didn't sound nearly as good.

I have been talking with people in my union, mostly falling on deaf ears, about not automatically dismissing Republican candidates and conservative philosophy concerning the firefighters union. I never liked being lumped in with the liberal agenda.

And Michael's example is exactly why I think that political parties have outlived their usefulness. People just grab on to one label and ignore everything else. Even if the person with the wrong label actually has views that match their own.

Why are people so lazy that they can't even learn about each of the candidates in a race? It is for that reason that I would love to get rid of all partisan races. You vote for the people and their ideas, not the parties. But then again, I guess Mike is giving us yet another reason to label the union heads as "lazy".

I won't vote for anyone who has anything to do with public unions, especially for school committee or local or state because it is obvious that their purpose is to protect themselves or fellow unionists and not at all for the taxpayer. And I'm not wrong about this

Michael-agreed.I remember when Jimmy Carter gave federal employees the biggest raise ever prior to his 1980 re-election bid.I don't know any of my fellow INS agents who voted for him.I don't think my vote is for sale.
I will say this-I have no use for the SEIU and will never vote for someone they support.They are just un-American.

" Unions have done a lot for this country; they were especially important when giant employers tried to take advantage of a harsh economy in the last century, not only to keep down wages but to speed up assembly lines and, worse, force workers to risk their lives and health. "

That's one of the comments of the person Marc uses.

Ask the miners of West Virginia and Kentucky and their families if they believe that they and theirs are not risking their lives and health. Ask the fishermen in Louisiana about how British Petroleum has put them out of work and agreed to hire them for cleanup jobs only if they sign waivers stating they won't sue for damages. What did you say about the last century?
Eleven oil drilling rig workers are presumed dead following the explosion and fire in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. mmorsepfd@aol.com,
Never fear. This person will never lump you in with any liberal agenda.

See Phil's comment above if you need to be reminded of why we need unions. If you were working rescue in West Virginia or Kentucky you'd be so busy rescuing non-union miners that you'd have little time to peddle your beliefs in your blog.

When politicians speak "for the unions", let's face it, they are speaking to government workers. I think that is preaching to the choir. While all government workers are unionized, only about 12% of the private sector is.
All the talk of helping manufacturing workers really is "1950's"

OTL, you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm as pro-union as they come. I just can't stand the absurd party line when it comes to most things. A republican doesn't have to be anti union. A democrat need not be pro union. Common sense should apply to the issues.

Michael,
It would be easier to believe that you are a pro union person if you occasionally submitted a few pro union thoughts to this blog. It seems to me that you are more interested in tooting your own horn than benefiting the collective organization you profess to love.
OldTimeLefty

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/005314.html

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/004737.html

OTL, I could continue tooting my own horn but then people would realize just how much I enjoy doing so.

Michael,
Your secret's already out. You are a blowhard self promoter.

I have no idea why you submit a thread from 2007 which toots your own horn, then toot your own horn again and explain the obvious, that you like to toot your own horn. Makes you sound monomaniacal.

Maybe you are so monomaniacal that you want to assure everyone that you are a monomaniac? Who knows; who cares?
OldTimeLefty

When it comes to unions that represent public safety employees (esp. FF's, EMS & Police), whether you have recognized it or not, the biggest fight we continue to fight is "staffing".

Cities and towns continue to push the "downsizing" of their police and fire departments. We (the unions) are the only thing that stands in their way of doing so. Again, whether you want to believe it or not, less policemen or firemen on the street equates to reduced public safety.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that the municipalities would cut these departments to the bone if they were not prevented from doing so by union contracts is fooling themselves.

Sadly, these contracts will not prevent these unconscionable cuts for much longer. Even the courts are rendering "legal contracts" as non-binding. So much for the "his word and his handshake" are all I need to seal the deal days we all seem to long for....

OTL, It's never been a secret,I've always been a blowhard self-promoter.

You asked for pro-union thoughts be submitted to this blog. I delivered two. I could have dug up literally hundreds more. Then I could have gone to the Providence Journal and dug up editorials and letters to the editor by the dozen to support my pro-union stance.

Because I question some of the beliefs and practices of organized labor as it is today must be threatening to you, I have no idea why.

The personal attacks are a mystery. What did I ever say or do to you?

Hello Tom, hope all is well.

Michael,
It's not what you say to me. It's what you say.

Nothing personal, just business.

Anti-union remarks just feed the beasts writing this blog. Unions aren't perfect. None of us are, not individually, not collectively.

Work inside the union to affect positive change, but stop throwing red meat to the retrogressives.

Look at these comments from contributors to this blog:
1. I won't vote for anyone who has anything to do with public unions.

2. I will say this-I have no use for the SEIU and will never vote for someone they support. They are just un-American.

These people don't really need you to take a shot at the unions. They do it quite well themselves.

Do you have aspirations of running for elected office, and hope to pull in some retrogressive votes? If that's what you are doing, and I hope you aren't, then you'd be just another "Me too" politician.
OldTimeLefty

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it is my belief that my commentary here has improved perception of union members. We are not all sheep being led by corrupt "union bosses." The dialog in the union halls is contentious at times, we hardly agree an anything, but in the end agree to do what is best for all of the members.

We are not unreasonable thugs throwing one-liners at political right leaning blogs. I have my own opinions, some more progressive than others, some more conservative. The union has taught me that as an individual I am pretty much powerless when dealing with the enormous machine that our government has become. As a group we have a chance.

I've always been honest in my opinions here. I'm not a union spokesperson, nor do I have any interest in running for office of any kind.

I need to point out two things regarding Mike's posts on this blog.

The first is that he's a much more subtle communicator regarding firefighter and union issues than I. As such he is probably more influentual in changing some minds here (the enemy camp - lol). His posts are more like the statements that go on at the closing stages of successful negotiations...a give and take, tying up loose ends.

My posts, on the other hand, are like the statements and demands made at the very beginning of negotiations. They state our positions and concerns without regard for the enemy's issues...I figure they know their own concerns and don't need me to point them out...so I just push my own issues.

The second thing I need to point out is that there is much discussion in our union hall both pro and con on just about every issue we discuss. On some issues we are almost unanymous and on some we're split more equally. The point of a union is to stick together in a united front. Therefore we "seem" like we all follow blindly...but it's anything but that way. Our leaders sometimes influence the body and sometimes the body influences our leaders. Either way, we'll stand united.