Democrats what is wrong with you?

Holy thread drift Veek:)

A reminder of how unions came about, and why we still need them, regardless of who they support financially.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs

The Dorset countryside is beautiful but in the 1830s life in villages like Tolpuddle was hard and getting worse. Workers could not bear more cuts to their pay. Some fought back by rioting but this brought harsh punishments.

In 1834, six farm labourers from the tiny village of Tolpuddle in Dorset, England, were transported to the hellhole that was the Australian penal colonies. Their crime? They had banded together to seek a wage that would fend off starvation for them and their families.

But in fact it was they who were the victims of the crime, a monstrous conspiracy between the British Home Secretary, Lord Melbourne, a corrupt judge and James Frampton, a local landowner who was outraged when the men took a stand against their pitiful wages.

The men were led by George Loveless, a man of high moral principles who had taught himself to read and write and would go on to become a Methodist preacher. His comrades were his brother James, Thomas Stanfield and his son John, James Hammett and Joseph Brine.

Two years earlier, trade unions had become legal in England and in 1833 the men formed the Tolpuddle lodge of the Agricultural Labourers Friendly Society after meeting beneath a giant sycamore in the village. This followed cuts in their wages from a miserable 10 shillings to seven shillings and threats to cut them further if they made trouble. At a meeting in Stanfield's cottage the group held an initiation rite based on a medieval ceremony which involved an oath of brotherhood. They hoped for an affiliation with the fledgling National Consolidated Trades Union.

The oath-taking ceremony was their big mistake. They could no longer be prosecuted for forming a trade union but Frampton and Lord Melbourne found another way. Back in 1797, sailors of the Royal Navy had staged mutinies in protests against wretched conditions and brutal officers. An Act of Parliament had been rushed through, banning secret oaths on pain of seven years transportation to the colonies and it was decided that this little-known law would be ideal to trap Loveless and his comrades.

Frampton found eight fellow magistrates to support him and they posted notices in and around Tolpuddle, warning against the taking of oaths. Two days later, the six men were seized and charged.

The trial, at nearby Dorchester, was a travesty. Judge John Williams knew exactly what was expected of him and he made it clear that the defendants should be found guilty.

As the jury members were all local landowners who were quite happy to continue paying starvation wages, the judge was pushing against an open door. The guilty verdict was a formality, the men were sentenced to seven years transportation and the judge later became a baron.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Yes, this is the point where he is clearly pandering to the unions for purposes of 2012 and it is disappointing I agree.

Can he take a position on the Wisconsin bill? Yes.

Should he rather than focus on the much bigger problems with the budget? Hell no.

Disappointing to me and I tend to think a lot of this President.

I don't think he's gone so far as to support the walkouts, despite what Foxnews and other conservative mouthpieces have said. He's openly criticized the Rep governor, but a president criticizing a governor is hardly new. Apparently he's having a tough time walking the line between cutting the budget and making sure his relationship with the unions is intact for that 2012 re-election campaign.

According to several sources the governor is doing exactly what he said he'd do when running for office so there should be no surprises there. He was elected by popular vote so someone in Wisconsin would like less union involvement at the government level.

I'm hardly qualified to comment on the WI union and state employee woes. My comments are on the walkout only which is a shameful tactic given there are accepted means of debating the topic available to the legislators.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Obviously, after what the Republicans have done to the economy, most/all States have budget shortages.
Posted be Jim Craik

Gee Vick, if you read my post again, you will see that I was not talking about just Wisconsin, the Republicans under the last administration have screwed up the budgets of almost all the States.

The Republicans have been in control of the state house in Wisconsin and the U.S. House for less than two months and you blame them for the problem?/QUOTE]posted by Veek

So Veek, in only two months thay have given big tax breaks to miti-national companies to the point where they must screw the Teachers Union. Not the Police Union, not the Fire Fighters Union, Not the Highway Patrol Union, but just the Teachers Union.

It appears that two months is all they need to screw up Wisconsins Budget.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Veek,

As for your post about Union Political donation, I'll say again, making donations to politicions who support your issues? Who would think!!!

It's apparent from the numbers you posted that the average American Union worker has no faith in the conservatives!
 

Pat

Supporter
Veek,

As for your post about Union Political donation, I'll say again, making donations to politicions who support your issues? Who would think!!!

It's apparent from the numbers you posted that the average American Union worker has no faith in the conservatives!

Nick, my apologies for the thread drift, I was helping Jim by responding to his question.

Jim, given your post, I'm sure you would support the notion that the average American Union worker should have a choice as to whether to be in a union and if so how their union makes political donations. It may surprise you to learn that in many states (such as Wisconsin), this is not the case.
As to the nature of the donations, in cases such as the NEA, they do not want public school competition, so their aggressive Democratic support has resulted in the removal of very successful voucher programs such as the one in Washington D.C. This allows them to protect their sources of union dues- public school teachers contribute over $100 million annually to their unions-(as well as protecting too many poor teachers). For example, Megan Sampson was named outstanding first-year teacher by the Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English last week. Second-year social studies teacher Kevin Condon, also at Bradley Tech High School, has four licenses and can command the attention of 40 students in an open-concept classroom. Both are among 482 educators - more than 12% of the full-time teachers in the district - who have received layoff notices from Milwaukee Public Schools. Their performance quality is ignored in favor of more tenured faculty irrespective of accomplishment. The union obviously prefers firings of high quality talent like Megan and Kevin than contribution (albeit lower cost than comparable private sector market) to their own pension and medical benefits.
So it would lead to the conclusion that breaking the union stranglehold on labor is good for workers and good for jobs. But it's bad for union dues, the lifeblood of the public-sector unions and the liberal Democrats they support. On the national level, it has been said that this is more about the involuntary servitude of forced unionism than it is about the economic condition of Wisconsin teachers.

Your frined Vick
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Veek,

For the THIRD time, if the conservative politicians had been honest, fair and treated all the unions equally, we would not be having this conversation.

I am in no way a fan of unions!

But these folks who were elected to work for the PEOPLE, instead chose to do a Sadam Husain and use their political power to go after enemies only, the predominantly liberal unions.

Exempting the conservative Police, Fire, Trooper unions and themselves.

Veek, do the police and fire unions keep older high seniority members and lay off the young, strong guys?................ YES THEY DO!!!

Stop trying to make this a Union thing, this is a fairness thing!
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Veek as for the post about unions making donations to politicians that support their cause, Veek, virtually all organizations that can benefit from it, do it.

Why do you only seem to be bothered By Liberal donations and Liberal Union practices?

Perhaps you are being less than fair?
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom P

Are you also trying to make this a union thing instead of a fairness thing?

That way you Think you can avoid the "attacking only your opponents" talk.

I just heard that 52% folks polled in Wisconsin think the Governer has gone too far.

Tom,

Why do you think that this Governer chose to balance the budget on the backs of only some folks in Wisconsin?
 
Last edited:
You want to be fair? The present unfunded state union liabilities have been caused by politicians making promises that the tax payer can't keep. 30 years ago Jerry Brown started the snowballing unfunded union liabilities in CA. The good people of CA just voted that moron back into office, good thinking! There comes a point where someone has to say "this isn't possible, we can't pay this", and a compromise has to be reached, or consider bankrupting the city or state. Chris Christy is taking a stand in NJ, not popular, but it has to be done. Unfortunately the state can't just go and print a bunch of money. This isn't a republican or democrat thing, it's survival! We can't keep pissing away money we don't have and are not going to get!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Oh,

I think i see, you think this is a union thing because your handlers, you know, Beck, Limbaugh, Fox tell you it's a union thing.

The politicians they support screwed the economy, blamed it on others and you believed their crap. They have you believing this economy is Obama, those horrible unions and Gerry Browns fault! You are very gullible! Try to think for yourself.

If a government needs to cut pay, break unions, fine! But it should cut all pay and beak all government unions evenly and fairly.

Stop with the union smoke screen, it's not about unions!

Please tell me why they chose to be unfair?
 
Last edited:
Oh,

I think i see, you think this is a union thing because your handlers, you know, Beck, Limbaugh, Fox tell you it's a union thing.

The politicians they support screwed the economy, blamed it on others and you believed their crap. They have you believing this economy is Obama, those horrible unions and Gerry Browns fault! You are very gullible! Try to think for yourself.

If a government needs to cut pay, break unions, fine! But it should cut all pay and beak all government unions evenly and fairly.

Stop with the union smoke screen, it's not about unions!

Please tell me why they chose to be unfair?

My handlers, stop talking stupid. Gerry Brown had a lot to do with the unions. What do you think the problem in Wisconsin is about? You don't watch the news on ABC, CBS, CNN? Who do you think are the constituents of the missing democrats? It's about the unions. At their start, unions helped people, they've changed into something much different. The economy, national debt, January 2009, 2 1/2 years with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, $8.6 trillion. 2 years later, national debt $13.8 trillion. Up 62%. Probably Bush's fault!
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I'm hardly qualified to comment on the WI union and state employee woes. My comments are on the walkout only which is a shameful tactic given there are accepted means of debating the topic available to the legislators.

Ron, it's difficult to determine if the politicians who left the state did what they did to better represent their constituents or not....imagine that those representatives were elected in areas where the union membership is a significant majority of the constituents. The Dems know that the Republicans will jam this down their throats, so the only way to stop that, which would be in the best interest of their constituents IF my proposed scenario is correct would certainly be to avoid being present in large enough numbers to prohibit a quorum, thereby keeping their constituents from losing their bargaining rights (even if the whole state in general did vote overwhelmingly for the Republican governor).

However, I must admit, I don't believe my proposed scenario is accurate. In fact, I'd bet a paycheck that the Republicans who are about to ram this down the throats of all the union members in WI would find a lot of constituents in their own area whom are definitely going to be hurt by the action of the majority party .

That's what it is, it's a party issue. Neither party is doing this in order to better represent their constituents, they are just following the party line. It's without a doubt a sad state of affairs, but for the sake of those union members who without the benefits provided by union membership (or, more accurately, without those benefits) will suffer great financial loss without the burden being spread evenly across all economic categories, I sincerely hope the Democrats can hold out long enough to force the WI state government to have to consider large scale layoffs. I think that when that happens, the two parties may have to actually communicate, perhaps to the point that they can put aside partisan political boundaries and really think about what they are doing for THEIR constituents.

Sadly, though, I'm not too confident.....certainly not holding my breath in hopes the parties can figure out how to cooperate, it just doesn't seem to be within their field of view right now :thumbsdown: .

Cheers from Doug!!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom, where did you get the info about Jerry Brown, I'd like to check it out?

It's not fair to talk about the deficit and not mention that Bush grew the size of government more than any, then conservatives cut taxes and started two nu-necessary wars with no way to pay for them. Then their economic policies almost killed the economy, further reducing taxes and increasing the debt.

You must have forgot about that or maybe your news does not cover that sort of thing? Tom here is a hint, when you watch the news and the Liberals are always wrong and the conservative are always right, they are lying to you, think about it!
 
Last edited:
Tom, where did you get the info about Jerry Brown, I'd like to check it out?

It's not fair to talk about the deficit and not mention that Bush grew the size of government more than any, then conservatives cut taxes and started two nu-necessary wars with no way to pay for them. Then their economic policies almost killed the economy, further reducing taxes and increasing the debt.

You must have forgot about that or maybe your news does not cover that sort of thing? Tom here is a hint, when you watch the news and the Liberals are always wrong and the conservative are always right, they are lying to you, think about it!

You think about it!
 
Doug, no disrespect here, but you noted above about the party line and jamming it down the other's throat. What about health care?

Al, yes he's gone !! Others have taken up his challenging spirit !!
 
I grow tired of the extremists from both sides.If you live in Wisconsin, then weigh in on this issue and if you don't shut up and worry about your own state of affairs.

All of you guys in California are staring into the abyss and you still think that you can negotiate the truth of the bankruptcy situation away. Go for it!
California, that once proud state and world leader has become a debtor nation unto itself with the policies that the legislature has voted for in the last 20 years. However you won't hear the Public Workers Unions complaining as they voted themselves into the fat and pork that is the public workers benefits today. Private sector be damned they say and that is what is happening. Anybody care to look at the growth of new jobs in California? How many were Government or 'payed for by the taxpayers' jobs? How much new growth in private sector jobs in comparison?
Let that be the judge of fiscal illumination.

Where is the need for Unions in the Public sector anyway? Governments would have to match benefits and pay to get the best workers and compete with the private sector. How does collective bargaining come into play for people paid by the general population? Aren't some called to serve like our military? And if we want the best and the brightest, won't governments have to pay higher wages to get them? Where is the need for collective bargaining I ask again?
The real issue for those opposed to the Wisconsin Governor's proposals is the loss of a big stick to beat the public about the head and force the taxpayer to give them better benefits than the general population. Why does that sound like every Arab country where one minority gets to tell the majority what to do simply because they can and give themselves benfits that they will not give to others? I don't see how this situation and the demands of the Public Workers Unions is any different.

I will now let the rabble rowsers rant on, but before I sign off, I have supported unions in sectors where greedy business owners refused to pay fair wages and create a safe working environment. My grandfather was a union man and rightly so given the industry that he worked in. However, Public employees work for the people and not the other way around. If the public workers don't like the working conditions or pay then get a job in the private sector. That is the ultimate freedom.
Garry
 
Back
Top