About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Our Supreme Court is Making America Great Again

Until yesterday, about 23 states allowed public sector unions to collect a "fair share" of union dues from nonmembers to cover the cost of collective bargaining that benefits them. No more. In a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines, the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that this practice violates the First Amendment. This means they will lose members, possibly as many as 726,000. It also means they will lose revenue, not for political contributions as many people erroneously think, but to pay for the very real cost of negotiating contracts or resolving grievances.

State Rep. Jeanne McNeill, whose late husband was a trade union business agent and was a union member herself, released this powerful statement:
“While this decision will signal to some that it’s OK for people to leave unions, it’s important to remember that unions will never leave working people. Because of unions, we have a minimum wage. Because of unions, we have an eight-hour work day. Because of unions, we have rules limiting underage labor. And because of unions, we will continue to have workers who truly believe in what public service is all about. No court case will stop the union movement.”
I know people who have long grumbled about having to pay for union representation when they refuse to join. But this is a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude.

I used to agree with these people. I thought of public sector unions as the equivalent of an appendix. Since a government is required to provide due process (notice and a hearing)  to most employees before firing them, I considered them unnecessary. 

But then I saw unions protect public sector employees from bureaucratic bullies who like to throw their weight around or politicians who were more interested in playing tough for the press than in being fair. I saw two simple clerks who were fired over an exchange of racy emails after a two-year investigation by a manager who always smelled to me like a brewery. How did they get their jobs back? Unions. I know a cop  who was always getting disciplined and was eventually fired because he refused to drop cases against the pals of elected officials. how did he get his job back? His union. I also know a nonunion county employee who was unfairly laid off and got no help 

As for the First Amendment, it appears to me that unions have that right too, and it includes the right of assembly. The Supreme Court has effectively gutted that right.

Yesterday's ruling is far from a win for the First Amendment It's actually a win for those who like to keep their lessers under their thumb.

Like it or not, that. has been this nation's history.

Back when America was great, we chained and loaded blacks onto ships to work our southern plantations, and thought nothing about ripping babies out of the arms of their mothers and breaking up families. Now we wonder why so many African American families are split up, and blame them for a condition we created.

Back when America was great, in 1897, Luzerne County Deputy Sheriffs thought nothing of gunning down dirty Polish, Slovak, German and Lithuanian miners who had dared strike for better conditions. Nineteen were shot dead, and as many as 49 more were wounded in what became known as the Lattimer massacre.

Back when America was great, in 1910, Pennsylvania state troopers shot three strikers at Bethlehem Steel, killing one of them.

Back when America was great, my own grandfather was forced as a boy to work the mines, picking up pieces of coal that had fallen off railcars. He lost two fingers.

Yesterday's ruling tells me the Supreme Court wants to make America great again.

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

Agree. I know I'm posting as anonymous, however, I'd really be interested to know the identities of the people who are going to comment on this. It just seems when you make these types of posts the anti-union comments originate from jealous under achievers. They all seem so angry.

Anonymous said...

This is what winning looks like to all you never Trumpers..

Anonymous said...

The problem with government unions (unlike private-sector trade unions) is that when a government union rep is negotiating with a politician, no one is representing the taxpayer.

With no real stake in the game, and not wanting to have a stoppage of government services, or having kids at home and not in school, the politician gives in to the union representative, basically what they demand. And in addition, in return for the union support, the politician receives money and door knocking manpower to get re-elected.

The taxpayer is just the chump who's made to pay for the self serving agreement between the other two. Public unions are immoral. Period. Full stop. Even FDR understood that.

Bernie O'Hare said...

FDR understood that in an environment in which publi sector employees were provided a full panaply of rights. Without unions, public sector employees would be bullied just as much as tends to happen to nonunion workers in the private sector.

T Marshall said...

A move forward for taxpayers. I salute the court.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Unions for a allowing me to make a fair wage so I can raise a family and educate my children. Thank you Unions for a forty hour work week. Thank you Unions for negotiating paid vacations. Thank you Unions for negotiating medical healthcare for me and my family. Thank you Unions for negotiating benefit packages that add to the quality of life of the American worker. Thank you Unions for forcing the employers to provide safe working conditions. Thank you Unions for negotiating minimal wages that results in a better working environment for all American Workers. Thank you Unions for providing a work environment that prohibits discrimination in the workplace and for a grievance procedure to hear my voice regardless of sex, religion, or the color of my skin. The list goes on and on. Thank you unions for making America the Greatest Work Force in the world and for making the American Worker the most envied on the face of the earth.
PROUD TO BE UNION.

Jerry Seyfried

Anonymous said...

Our grandfathers and our great grandfathers are rolling in their graves. They understood the way things work. Their progeny is a bunch of brainwashed dummies. A hundred years ago they understood that America was built on money and cheap labor. Hell, even salve labor in the beginning. Throughout history the money always pushed people down as low as possible. America behind all the slogans and parades is a capitalist paradise for the wealthy and always has been. Except for a few brief periods when the excess was so criminal it could not be ignored, money has always been the way.

Now they have shipped your jobs to cheaper workers in the third world, screwed over your children's future, ruined your ability to afford healthcare and you still praise them. They con you by waving the flag in your face and claim any attempt for economic justice is socialism and you buy it. What a bunch of dummies. Your union ancestors must be ashamed.

MAGA my ass!!

Anonymous said...

The Dems now have a serious problem of funding sources. They are now going to have to dance to whatever tune their big donors call. Will they have to turn to Clinton Cash? Will the politicians have to kick in seriously from the proceeds of their honest and dishonest graft'? They are not going to like ponying up out of their own pockets. Since the Dem trend is farther to the Left, when do the big donors get the point that socialism is bad for their own interests and money? Dem voters are not likely to spring with the cash---cash they get from 'Obama's Stash' They are not about to pay up. For them it is always 'Gimme' and 'Gimmemore'.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:54 are you really that brainwashed?

Innocent Bystander said...

There are mixed bag feelings about this ruling. The Unions have enjoyed some protection from abuse by employer . On the other hand teachers unions have by in large run off with the store.they get paid for higher education levels ,but we pay to get them there. Application of education is not dominating this group . The problems stem from lack of leadership and lack of trust. Hopefully this rule will find middle ground . I know unions protect some incompetent people that can’t be fired , but that s a leadership issue from the hiring processes. If you hire your relatives and friends to work for the airline as pilots, well ,the planes crash . I also see the clerk at the county level that can’t support any discernible living above the bare minimum. So - I hope we find common ground .

The Huntress said...

No, 3:54 is ignorant and doesn't realize that we all are dancing to the tune of corporate donors now. They are in solid control of this country. Evidence? Look at how many times polls have shown that by large margins the PEOPLE want universal background checks for gun purchases, legalized marijuana, medicare and social security safeguarded from cuts, environmental protections, etc. etc. Why aren't these supported?...because corporations who don't like regulations or unions and want more tax cuts (that they know will drive up debt so let's cut social safety nets) will reap the benefits. Pensions? (both private and public) pullleeease!!! Not if they can help it because it cuts into shareholder returns and executive windfalls. THEY determine what our elected officials are willing to vote for and the people be damned. This is not left wing drivel, this is now. WAKE UP!

Anonymous said...

First Amendment rights are more important. Game over. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

Please keep in mind, there’s a HUGE difference between public sector unions and privates. They are as different as night and day. Public sector unions are not your father’s union, not even remotely.

Anonymous said...

Under a collective bargaining agreement and the National Labor Act, unions MUST represent ALL members. It is incumbent upon the employer to build a case in order to discipline and terminate employment. This means that the employer MUST actually learn and understand the collective bargaining agreement and use this as their guide. This is lost on many HR people who have become increasingly lazy. Poor performers can and are terminated. Just cause has to be shown so your phrase, “can’t be fired” is total crap. Your perceptions are way off base. I’d be willing to wager that 90% of educators have more education than you do. Most of teachers have multiple degrees that would command salaries much higher in the public sector. You want to find common ground while you look down your nose at County clerks. Stick it!!
—-Mother Jones

Anonymous said...

5:48. Agreed

Anonymous said...

There sure are a lot of entitlement republicans out there. I still have not figured out why so many union members are Trump supporters. Just wait til this downward movement hits their pocket book. Next will be eliminating prevailing wage from public contracts.

Anonymous said...

Now millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other government employees across the country gain the freedom to decide if paying a union is a worthwhile proposition. This is how it should have always been.

No one should be forced to finance an organization he or she disagrees with.

The Huntress said...

Show me the teacher or cop or firefighter who believes they are overpaid or don't want to at least hold on to the benefits they already have. They know there are more benefits than detriments to belonging to a union. I can only speak for teachers in PA as far as political support for candidates, etc. There is a separate, completely voluntary arm called PACE for political contributions. This ruling is a bane to ALL unions and non-union workers. Remember one of the reasons why ALL workers rose into the middle class in larger numbers in the 1950's, 60's and 70's...UNIONS drove up wages for everyone. Wages have already stagnated since the slow but steady demise of one union after another. Just how many people need to slide into the working poor from the middle class before we say ENOUGH! And don't tell me how great the job market is...yeah so people can now get the TWO jobs they need in order to make a real living wage.

Anonymous said...

My wife is forced to pay union dues to a union that she doesn't want to belong to and we are hoping this ruling will help her become free of the burdensome dues, much of which are used to fund Democrat campaigns. Another great decision by the Court.

Anonymous said...

Why should Progressive Liberals, the real Democrat Party, care about what some old white guy writes?

Meanwhile, Trump IS making America great again and will continue to do so despite the constant objections of and character assassinations by Bernie O'Hare.

Anonymous said...

No union and nobody may co-opt an individual’s First Amendment rights. This is not difficult. 1A used to get more protection from the left. My how things have changed. Unions are a good thing. They are an economic factor like taxes and regulation and cost of good sold. I’m glad people are free to join or not to join, free to contribute or not to contribute. Most Americans have job protections in law that unions sought to achieve. Mission accomplished. Why unionize, in most cases? Nostalgia? 90% of the original Fortune 500 are gone. Times change. Unions will rise again when they are needed, with the exception of public sectors who are a political faction with lots of protections. Public’s aren’t really unions. They’re a PAC of sorts. The filibuster was destroyed by Harry Reid. Dems have been hoisted by their own petard.

Anonymous said...

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

8.10
try
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/twisting-thomas-jeffersons-words/2012/12/18/97d337d0-488d-11e2-8af9-9b50cb4605a7_story.html?utm_term=.20a1375b8d02

"he was denouncing the various ecclesiastical establishments that dominated religious life in most of the colonies and the push to establish Christianity as the official religion of the new nation."

Anonymous said...

@7:55, my union pecker left its dues in your wife's tubes. She can quit her job and work somewhere else if it's that bad in getting a 40 hour work week.

Anonymous said...

So now instead of one union you will have several unions all offering their services to public sector workers.
Not just one Union.
That means a militant group can concentrate their power even more than they can now.

Anonymous said...

7.55
So when the union makes an agreement for a wage increase for it's members only,those individuals who opt out will be left to fend for themselves.
After all if no agency fees are being paid that individual is not entitled to free representation.

Anonymous said...

This is about liberty, it does not eliminate unions, it lets people have the freedom to choose, if they are being represented by a union whose agenda is conforming to their personal beliefs. No one should be forced to join an organization that is working against that persons beliefs. It will make unions more accountable to their members, It may even allow for competition in union representation. Many teachers are outraged their union, especially at the national level has endorsed gay rights education even in first grade. Or introduced the transsexual agenda to elementary school children. In America no one should be forced to support those who are anathema to themselves. The Unions made the choice a long time ago to change the social fabric of America, to become the arm of the socialist Democratic party. To engage in propaganda on gun control and other issues that were not part of what unions started out to be. They will now have to entice members, rather than be dictators.

Anonymous said...

7.09
"No one should be forced to finance an organization he or she disagrees with"
ok
then no organization should have to finance any person who disagrees with them.
As a member of the union i feel my "first amendment rights" are violated if i have to spend my money defending a freeloader who is not part of the union.

Anonymous said...

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Forced membership was always wrong in my mind. Let prospective members determine the value before them.

Anonymous said...

8.43
so people who opt out of the union deserve no representation correct?

Anonymous said...

8:50 - believe it or not, in many cases the employee does NOT need representation. If a lawyer is required, insurance needed, that can be obtained privately. It's even possible many are satisfied with their wages and conditions. If not, they prefer to talk it out themselves. Whatever, we've always had non-unionized workplaces and those who work there are frequently satisfied. Their CHOICE what is best.

Anonymous said...

Where do you get your info dues monies can not be used for political purpose there are separate voluntary deductions for that if you choose to participate in it

Anonymous said...

While unions were important in the early days of the industrial revolution, they are less needed now, workers who want to excel and grow in the future are held back by the union. Unions often enforce mediocrity. Silicone valley and many of the modern jobs have no union, workers often move around in search of better opportunities. Companies are now looking for people who are self directed and assume responsibility and are willing to pay high wages for those abilities. Those with the "union mentality" who believe that their employer is the enemy to be coerced into giving them as much as possible for as little effort as possible and are unwilling to assume responsibility will never succeed in the new environment. There are tremendous opportunities in this country, you will never take advantage of them through a union. Private sector unions that are overly coerced by the union go out of business. The Public sector employers, "Politicians",of public sector workers just raise the taxes on the private sector workers and employers. They could care less if they all go out of business.

Anonymous said...

Good responsible workers do not need a union. Only those who can only make a living by coercion and extortion.

Anonymous said...

While it may be true that you shouldn't be forced to join a union, conversely you should not be able to receive the same benefits that are negotiated for and received by those who do join a union. Freedom of choice cuts both ways. Think of the extra jobs that will be created by school districts when they have to seperate payroll, pension benefits, sick time and vacation time into two seperate ledger entries. Those in the union get what their negotiated contracts call for and those non union employees get only what benefits they as individuals, can coerce the schools to give them.

Anonymous said...

Here’s a grand idea -- pass a national right to work law.

Anonymous said...

Lehigh County employee alleges harassment by union. Let the games begin

Anonymous said...

How many union members feel their reps do not help them in their time of need? Old boy system. Protect each other and serve on a board to cushion themselves from their own lack of being responsible but deny a member their due process? Hear it way too much in the Valley. Prisons, Police, Schools...

Anonymous said...

My employer too 4 comp leave days away from us during a merger, gave them 15% compensation increases and probably spent the tax cut on stock buyback. This is not winning.

Anonymous said...

Unions have no right to tax. Also, no union has the right to compel an employer to collect their dues. If they want dues, then they can collect them from their members, not non-members.

There should be NO public sector unions as FDR, the Democrat darling, once stated.

Anonymous said...

12:43 AM. If you don't like the working conditions of your employer, you are free to find another position more suitable to your liking.

Anonymous said...

Bernie O'Hare said: "As for the First Amendment, it appears to me that unions have that right too, and it includes the right of assembly. The Supreme Court has effectively gutted that right."


Only on this blog could a decisions that gives PEOPLE more freedom, and more of an opportunity to choose, be portrayed as gutting the First Amendment.

The decision doesn't ban unions. It only gives PEOPLE the choice of joining.

It seems to me that if a union is doing a good job of representing the workers and the workers are receiving a real value from the unions, employees will view it as money well spent.

But, if people don't think that they're being well-represented, they now have a choice.

Unlike the attempt to twist this decision and compare it to slavery (which came later in the original post), it seems to me that the decision ends the slavery of forced membership in an organization many don't want to belong to.

Anonymous said...

"Unlike the attempt to twist this decision and compare it to slavery'

I thought that was absolutely obscene. Typical when a leftist gets desperate for a legal reason to oppose freedom.

Anonymous said...

I came from a family that worked in private sector and were union supporters. When I started working in county government I spoke up and helped get unions in our jobs. I was on negotiating teams and was a shop steward. I started to become disillusioned as I saw less support from the parent union going to us and a move to support the socialistic, democrat party left leaning positions. In addition, I grew to believe that unions did not belong in the public sector. I saw them support mediocracy in their members and saw new workers disillusioned as initiative was stifled. Some would contend that the union protects workers who are not the bosses' favorites. On the contrary, I saw union reps protected by management and allowed to get away with stuff the regular workers could not. And the taxpayer is fed platitudes and foots the bill for that. Today's public sector unions would not be recognized by my parents and grandparents.

Anonymous said...

Bernie O'Hare said:

"It also means they will lose revenue, not for political contributions as many people erroneously think, but to pay for the very real cost of negotiating contracts or resolving grievances."


Everyone knows that the "fair-share" calculation was inflated, and that some of that money was still being forwarded to political groups. Even if it wasn't, it was certainly being used to pay for the outrageous salaries of many union leaders, far in excess of the people they represent.

Employees can now decide whether their unions are representing their views and make their choice accordingly.

That's a win for progress, a win for democracy, and a win for freedom. Everyone should support yesterday's decision.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I don't know that. There was certainly no proof. But I will agree that Alito assumed as fact something that was not in evidence.

Jeff Fox said...

Mother Jones @ June 28, 2018 at 5:48 AM

"I’d be willing to wager that 90% of educators have more education than you do. Most of teachers have multiple degrees that would command salaries much higher in the public sector."

It has been my experience that there are those with much "education" who lack practical (real world) knowledge of such an education. They are "book smart" but are greatly lacking in the common-sense application of what they know. Because they have letters after their name and educational achievement they demand respect rather than command or earn respect. Formal "education" does not guarantee or determine who is better than anyone.

" Most of teachers have multiple degrees that would command salaries much higher in the public sector. "

Most teachers obtain a master's degree in PA. Having a master's degree is preferred in hiring and moving up in the step system, better compensation. Many teachers with multiple degrees do teach at public colleges and universities within the public sector. Public schools are also in the public sector. Either way, the taxpayer must pay for the higher salaries which they demand or command. The spending side and the taxpayer side need to be taken into consideration. Please don't tell me to "stick it". I base my opinion on my experience and observations, which include being among educators for many years. My daughter, who has obtained a master's degree, has taught at the high school level for almost 20 years.

Anonymous said...

12:20- something like 24-30 credits beyond a Bachelor's Degree is REQUIRED BY LAW to maintain a teaching license. Essentially, this makes obtaining a Master's Degree an obligation.

Anonymous said...

Businesses aren't generous to their employees because they want to be, they are generous because unions make them be generous. Everything we enjoy today as a working society, we owe to unions. It's that simple. If you work for a non-union company, even that company is raising salaries and wages because if he didn't, no one would work for him. Everyone would work for the company that pays the most in wages and benefits, and that my dear friends is a plain and simple fact. Thank you "Unions" for all you do. Long live unions.

Anonymous said...

12:47- If we ONLY had non-union employers, every employer will know he/she can attract more and better employees by keeping their company above the competition in available benefits. I don't believe much will change due to voluntary union membership.

Anonymous said...

Union negotiators will have to pick-up their game, do their part to MAGA, and come up with a product worthy of the contribution. Make the ruling moot.

Anonymous said...

As a progressive I hate this. On the other hand, I've been extremely unhappy with my union (court appointed professional) and if they could step it up to convince employee to join then that would be great.

Anonymous said...

I like how union apologists support the whole raft of open borders candidates. The US Chambers of Commerce love it, as you guys fight for an influx that provides cheap labor by replacing annoying union complainers. Your own candidates want to undercut your wage gains. It's like Harry Reid nuking the filibuster and letting his party get bludgeoned with it, just five years later. Waxing nostalgic about old battles doesn't change the present. The right to organize is critical. But it's not as critical as the right to control the expression of one's own opinions. When DA Morganelli regularly sides with 1A protections, he's Bernie's hero for always leaning toward 1A protection.

Anonymous said...

What are union apologists? And so wants open borders? Not democrats...

Anonymous said...

Hey Bernie, when your buddy Stoffa was running the show you hated union thugs, You mocked them constantly. How the worm turns.

Anonymous said...

Screw Bobby Kennedy, let's talk about unions' long history of direct ties to the Mafia.

JIMMY HOFFA

Anonymous said...

Unions support Democrat Party politicians only. Democrat Party politicians support illegal immigration and open borders. Unions support illegal immigration and open borders, end of story.

Anonymous said...

Democrats DO NOT support illegal immigration or open borders.

Innocent Bystander said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Uh, yeah, they certainly do. Read your own party's memos on open borders as a critical voter registration strategy.

Anonymous said...

Democrats wholeheartedly support open borders and nor requirement for voter identification because this is a racist country we stole from Native Americans - including Mexican tribes. Unions who don't like it should pipe down on their own racism considering all the party has done for them over generations. Look at the big picture. As President Obama said, this is about fundamentally transforming our country. How soon we forget.

Innocent Bystander said...

Mother Jones - you didn’t get it . I’m for the clerks are court house to make a fair wage . I was there to day in Prothonotary s office and the lady was gtreat . See you don’t Evan know what they do there but you have a degrees from a “normal college “ so your hanging out that on me ? Mean like - could you work for Charlie Shrin he passed the 6 th grade!

Anonymous said...

African American families are split up due to Father's not being real men and not focused on Education.They also believe they can have as many kids as they want.There are a lot of good African American Father's,you are off the mark Professor !

Peter J.Cochran said...

Theresa M you are troll that keeps tolling The Judge. If you have a problem with him you come see me personally. I will help you ! You need to talk too someone and get your issue over with from high school.

Anonymous said...

DEMOCRATS DO NOT SUPPORT OPEN BORDERS. Educate yourself.

Bernie O'Hare said...

”Hey Bernie, when your buddy Stoffa was running the show you hated union thugs, You mocked them constantly. How the worm turns.”

No matter the topic, there are always anonymous people who will attack me. I explained that my view on public sector unions changed during John Stoffa’s admininsration, and I explained why. I did criticize the union when it ganged up on someone to demand her resignation. That was bullying, and I stand by what I said then, too. My thinking changed when I saw people getting fired who would have no real recourse but for the union. I saw this in NorCo and Bethlehem. Also, on a visit to Gracedale, I was blown away by how much the people who work there really do care about the residents.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Innocent Bystander, I deleted one of your comments bc it was an ugly attack on another reader. Feel free to take people on, but please be respectful. I appreciate different views but let’s not assume the worst about others.

Bernie O'Hare said...

6:53, I think it is Gary Strausser who only made it to 7th. Cannot speak to Chin’s education.

Innocent Bystander said...

Well Bernie , you can’t see everything as it happens. This blog is that GATEWaY to what happens in the countyt though the . Not Council Meating. Charlie Chrin is of Russian haritage ,his ansestoror came here before there was a government.he worked and picked up my parent s garbage . Wow, no MastersDegree in education .

Anonymous said...

To the people that keep saying Democrats want open borders to increase the number of Democratic voters, you clearly are just parroting what Trump says because nobody else could come up with a scheme that makes so little sense. Democrats (generally speaking; I obviously can't speak for all of us) want a faster and easier process to immigrate to the US legally. This will reduce illegal immigration and make it easier for law enforcement officers to apprehend dangerous criminals and drug smugglers at the border. Also, undocumented immigrants can't vote (falsely claiming to be a US citizen on a PA voter application carries a penalty of $15,000 or 7 yrs in prison, both of which hardly seem worth it).

Innocent Bystander said...

Strausser is and has been for many years.a Floridian Resident . He lives is Florida because bankruptcy rules are liberal. So after his development s fail and the water is running inyour basement ,he’s clear from you bringing a claim . Your fucked. New guy in development selling high cost low quality homes here , new people fucked before it’s over. Ah ,I would hang somebody of this myself. So Beware!

Anonymous said...

Come on anon 8:50, that is free enterp0rise. If you don't like it move to Russia

Anonymous said...

Please, everybody has figured out exactly why the Democrat Party always strongly champion illegal immigrants and their precious accompanying children who voluntarily break our country's laws by intentionally violating the United States' sovereign borders.

Anonymous said...

Always fighting so hard for Amnesty dressed up in fancy language probably does not do very favors for the today's contemporary Democrat Party, either.

Anonymous said...

Like Bernie Ebbers and Donald Trump???

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around this. Non-citizens cannot register to vote.

Democrats have not seriously proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants in decades, and Reagan was the last president to actually give illegal immigrants amnesty. Modern Democratic proposals often feature a path to legal residence or citizenship for undocumented people who are already here, except those who have committed serious crimes. This usually includes some sort of fine and multiple security checks. In a poll conducted in Feb. 2017, even 72% of Trump supporters supported some path to citizenship. (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article135300234.html)

And before you say that entering the country is a serious crime: no, it isn't, it is a misdemeanor.

Anonymous said...

My comment to “stick it” was made in response to you looking down your nose at County employees. I’ve worked with many public school educators and they are heroes. Working in impossible conditions doing impossible work. I don’t see many public school educators running to Catholic/Private schools to earn 22k and have no representation on the job.
—-Mother Jones.

Anonymous said...

Sorry that you are unhappy. What did you do to improve things? Do you go to meetings and participate? Did you run for steward or officer?? YOU are the union and can make a difference, or not.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea what you are talking about. Take your time,collect your thoughts and construct a cohesive sentence. What does Charlie Chri have to do with all of this?
—-Mother Jones

Anonymous said...

Always attempting to minimize the criminality of illegal immigrants definitely does not do very much good for the Democrat Party.

Ronald Reagan was flat out hustled by the Democrat Party and now the Democrat Party proudly brags about it?

It is not an accident that the Democrat Party is in such massive trouble.

Anonymous said...

Illegal immigrants have no Constitutional rights, so constantly championing the 'rights' of law-breaking people who have no rights in the first place probably does not do much to help today's contemporary Democrat Party. American citizens simply are not top priority for today's contemporary Democrat Party. In fact, American citizens are always the last ones in line for the Democrat Party and We The People are fully aware of this.

Ovem Lupo Commitere said...

I have been in both private sector and public sector unions. Regardless of which, I have viewed them as both positive and negative.

The strongest positives: safety, and salary/benefits (which I will also list as a negative). Business is primarily concerned with the bottom line, and if they can cut corners to either a) stay competitive, and/or b) increase profits/dividends, they will. Union contracts were a big part in helping to create the lower-middle class. The history books are also full of safety abuses. However, even in my own experience, I can recall working in a factory and being instructed to crawl into these huge bins to clean them without any protective gear beyond loose fitting painters masks. The bins were used for vinyl chloride (probably polyvinyl chloride, since it was powdered), and the labels on the containers it came in clearly noted how it could cause cancer. When my co-worker and I objected, the foreman laughed and cracked some joke about how they made the stuff somewhere in Kentucky where no body cares what happens to them. We cared, and we got protective gear.

Negatives: protecting bad employees, and salary/benefits. There is a certain "an attack on one is an attack on all" mentality, and fear of the slippery slope that if the few incompetent are not also protected, eventually nobody is. In both private and public sector, I've seen people abuse this. Re salary in the private sector, in a case of too much of a good thing, unions got greedy by the 70s and probably helped bring about the demise of many industries (couple with management greed in not modernizing), by not always being realistic in salary demands. Re public sector, collectively bargaining is essential for fairness, as govt entities are also going to be looking at the bottom line. However, I've never forgotten that we are ultimately public servants. The one time I can recall when strike talk became very real, I personally agonized over the possibility of crossing the line, and all the ramifications that could bring.

Anonymous said...

I would have thought unions would be all in favor of an institution like Immigration & Customs Enforcement. So why is the Democrat Party encouraging nationwide protests calling for the elimination of ICE? We The People are so happy with the result of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, thank you very much.

Next Trump hit piece, please.

Anonymous said...

The much ballyhooed "Blue Wave" will be a ripple in the Red Tide coming in November...