February 19, 2011

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

FDR wrote in 1937, quoted by Real Clear Politics:
Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

52 comments:

Lem said...

FDR is Hitler ;)

edutcher said...

FDR, seems to have understood the havoc this would cause eventually.

When the hard Left Demos realized this was a source of money and muscle in the early 60s, and looked no further, they jumped in with both feet. No coincidence that "idealist", Governor Moonbeam, brought the public sector unions to CA, where they've metastasized.

AprilApple said...

Yep. And if you are unhappy with your public service job, quit and find a job in the private sector.

traditionalguy said...

FDR is spotlighting the conflict of interest standard for attorneys. Unions are functionally like the lawyers that Trooper hates so much. They get higher fees for causing disputes than for getting along. It is true that a hateful employer can instigate his workers to go get themselves a lawyer/union. But when the public employee hires a lawyer to fight against the Public there is a clear conflict of interest.

rhhardin said...

FDR is off target.

It's not obstructing, which can be good, but instability that's the problem.

The union and the management are not on opposite sides. Each supports the other, through favors at the expense of the taxpayers.

In the private sector, unions are self limiting (except for government bailouts) when they bankrupt the enterprise, as they are destined to do, by the way.

Fen said...

And if you are unhappy with your public service job, quit and find a job in the private sector.

Can you imagine if the private sector forced employees to contribute to the RNC?

EDH said...

May they be haunted by the ghost of the 32nd president, and his little dog, too.

Okay, now I'm getting all confused about who is supposed to be the Wicked Witch of the West.

Beldar said...

A better quote, I think, because it explains and teaches:

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress." — Franklin D. Roosevelt

SteveR said...

Its really not very hard to understand that. As April says, if you don't like the deal, find another job.

J said...

AS usual edutcher has it backasswards.

The public employees unions were.... a moderate, even corporate tactic. The old school labor organizers did not consider schoolteachers, the police, or firemen union material. FDR reflects that view. Unions were by and large for skilled labor--electricians, carpenters, plumbers, miners, factory workers, truck drivers perhaps. Unskilled labor was...generally not union either (perhaps IWW).

And still waiting for some of the A-house glibertarians to denounce the cop unions.

Cato Renasci said...

I have said for more than 30 years that the decision to allow public employees to unionize, forcibly collect dues, and (often) to strike, is the single greatest policy mistake in American government since Reconstruction.

Fen said...

Sorry J. You blew your credibility on innane topics over the last month. No one believes a word you say.

Time to get a new sock-puppet, Libtard.

Calypso Facto said...

Hey!

Michael K said...

The public employees unions were.... a moderate, even corporate tactic. The old school labor organizers did not consider schoolteachers, the police, or firemen union material. FDR reflects that view. Unions were by and large for skilled labor--electricians, carpenters, plumbers, miners, factory workers, truck drivers perhaps. Unskilled labor was...generally not union either (perhaps IWW).

The Congress of Industrial Organizations, the union for unskilled industrial workers, was founded in 1935 and joined with the AFL only in 1955.

There is still an important place for trade unions which run apprenticeship programs and teach trades. The industrial unions, like the UAW and USW have pretty much driven their industries out of business or overseas.

SteveR said...

Who are you talking abouy Fen? Oh wait, school is out today.

J said...

Sorry Fenster, you blew your credibility like this morning, at the Tulsa truck stop, for a dime bag. Or maybe that was yr mama.

The A-housers don't know f*ck about US History. FDR supported democratic politics, and collective bargaining. Ergo, he would probably have supported the PE unions, which were a later add-on, democratically voted in.


The A housers are probably like small bidness teabag types, and Teabugs don't want any unionists interferring with their profits--nor do their corporate superiors. Or they're just following orders GlennBeckCo, America's favorite retard.

edutcher said...

J said...

AS usual edutcher has it backasswards.

The public employees unions were.... a moderate, even corporate tactic. The old school labor organizers did not consider schoolteachers, the police, or firemen union material. FDR reflects that view. Unions were by and large for skilled labor--electricians, carpenters, plumbers, miners, factory workers, truck drivers perhaps. Unskilled labor was...generally not union either (perhaps IWW).


But this isn't about old school of the 20s and 30s. This is about hard core radicals like the Rathke brothers, Jerry Wurf, and Andy Stern.

So, as always, J lies.

lewsar said...

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." - FDR

"The A-housers don't know f*ck about US History. FDR supported democratic politics, and collective bargaining. Ergo, he would probably have supported the PE unions, which were a later add-on, democratically voted in" - J

there is thing called 'reading comprehension'. get some.

lewsar said...

there is this thing...

J said...

No, you lie chump, and don't know f*ck about labor issues. Teachers were...considered bourgeois to older labor types. Not "hard leftists', moron.

And really like most at A-house, you simply mean PE unions are not good for your business, little man, or so you think. But it might be good for others. Cost-benefit analysis a bit beyond a Tweekhouser tho, except maybe when figuring out the days dimebag profits.

J said...

12: 25--
I've got plenty of reading comprehension skills, satanist.

AS do the Feds getting ready to bust this site, and regs

capichay Aynnie Randers ,mormons, hicks?

Eric said...

It is supposedly illegal for public employee unions to strike in Wisconsin for just this reason that unions striking can obstruct the operations of government.

Well.

Did we not just witness a wildcat strike? What's Wisconsin's net recourse? This is Wisconsin's airtraffic controller moment.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@J(agoff)

You're right, business owners as a matter of course endeavor to limit expenditures so they can stay in business. If you're simply saying that the cost of doing business should include supporting top-heavy union labor, for whatever reason/doesn't matter, that makes you on par with the best Tammany Hall had to offer.

J said...

Really these are mostly just Mitt Rammney followers. Which is to say mormon terrorists. Which is to say, ...perps

Ahh yeahh. Even the ghost of Jefferson pisses on yr collective face

edutcher said...

You can tell who is losing the argument, he's the first to raise his voice.

- Old Chinese Proverb.

Or use profanity.

- Internet reality.

PS As I said, this isn't about the Walter Reuthers or George Meanys. It's about the people I mentioned.

Or Albert Shanker.

Learn to read, it may make you a better debater

J said...

12:36.

In fact you're wrong again Edutcher. Teachers were not in unions since they were not laborers.

Yr just too venal, corrupt and irrational to realize it. Infected, like with GlennBeck disease.

PETER V. BELLA said...

@J

There is a difference between reading comprehension and reading the pseudo-revisionist history you refer to.

The first is due to functional illiteracy, congenital conditions, or lack of education. The second is due to drinking too much Kool Aid and wearing tin foil hats.

modmin said...

How long do you think it would take to get them back to work if a call was put in to IBM for Watson?

Huge can of worms, I know, but...

edutcher said...

AFT ain't no union?

NEA ain't no union?

Then who does the teacher strikes?

I know - all those teabagging, Mormon homeschoolers, right?

Kurt said...

Just like I pointed out yesterday.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

12:48, they are now, dimwit, but teachers and cops were not considered labor in 20s-30s; ergo not union material. That's FDR's point--arguably a leftist point, whether one agrees or not (then an A-houser not likely to understand it anyway).

Teachers unions are middle class, all the way, except to the sort of human trash who support Mitt Romney, and think Ayn Rand a great intellectual.

madawaskan said...

Well how about they do their-

"collective bargaining" in the voting booth?

If they are the provably invaluable teachers the public will be on their side.

They get a chance to do this every two years for the lower chamber.

But, they lost and lost big-with one of the most dramatic swings down ticket from Democrat to Republican of any state and now this happens.

Mobs shouting down the legislative process, while their Democrat cohorts shut down the process.

All 14 of them.

Why don't they wait till the next election?

Oh that's right they don't want their votes diluted and/or equal to that of everyone else.

They want to be more equal determined by who can mob swarm the best.

The unionists aren't interested in our form of government.

Unions are traditionally and historically socialists.

They just fool the college kids with the warm and fuzzy-

Communitarianism these days.

JorgXMcKie said...

You guys had better be careful, or "J" will stamp his liddle feet harder then throw himself on the floor and scream til he's blue in the face.

At this point, his comments no longer even have any value as humor.

OTOH, she/he/it does rather conveniently encapsulate the typical Lefty style of debate.

Roger J. said...

Ahh I see our resident hegel scholar is back--bereft of knowledge, skill or brains.

Much like president Obama who has made Jimmy Carter look good, Mr J has made Jeremy and his various incarnations look like socrates.

edutcher said...

J wants to set the rules by claiming we all misrepresent FDR's stance. Since public employees weren't unionized then, his words do not apply to them today.

Tortured.

madawaskan said...

btw- somehow the way they are going about this hurts their case, especially the collective bargaining aspect because they are trying to use their numbers as some sort of point of intimdation.

Numbers inflated by the high school kids they took with them.

Did those kids have much of a choice?

Numbers inflated by the college kids.

Some of them who probably pay very little in taxes and aren't even residents of the state.

While it may look like great fun and good cheer from inside the college campus environment of Madison I bet to those outside of Madison it doesn't look as fun.

And, what was absolutely ridiculous was the end of what Althouse taped of Jesse Jackson's speech.

He had the kids chanting and repeating everything he said.


When we fight we win!

Birmingham!

Selma!

South Africa!

Cairo!

Madison!

For the children!


Yes-he actually had "the children" chanting-

For the children.

I think even Jesse Jackson realized how ridiculous that was and laughed.

madawaskan said...

Roger-

Gawd is he a Hegelite?

Roger J. said...

Mad: nope--in a previous discussion of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,our friend J went to a wiki and cut and pasted some comments about hegel--as you might suspect, a rather poor show. Wiki arms the ignorant with enough material to get them into intellectural trouble. Thus our friend J

madawaskan said...

Mr J has made Jeremy and his various incarnations look like socrates.

Ha!

I dunno who's got the most sock puppets around here?

I think it's Ritmo.

**************
That's why I put the -"lite' in there.

I should have hyphenated it.

Gawd- he's swear-full though,ey?

Roger J. said...

Mad--off topic but got back this summer from a two week canoe trip on Mirond Lake in northern sask--love the province--ey?

madawaskan said...

I just found this.

The children are doing yoga in the rotunda.

Protest Pose

I think Althouse should check their student IDs-make sure they aren't from out of state.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

Oh so cool Roger!

I love canoeing-use to go to canoe camp every summer at a certain age in New Brunswick.

I once saw a salmon about the size of my canoe.

Seemed like anyway. The kid I was paddling with-almost jumped out to catch it.

It was that crazy big. It's the "provincial" fish that got away story.

If I've been to Sask-it was probably driving through.

madawaskan said...

btw-I can accidently do this j-stroke and flip 18 ft. aluminum canoes.

People insist I kayak these days. heh.

Alex said...

J is a chump who doesn't know FUCk about his own asshole, much less history.

Ut said...

Hmmm ... posted without comment.

Does Althouse support the concept of public employee unions?

She's been strangely silent on this issue. (And isn't it interesting that even though this post merely quotes another post at RCP ... Instapundit links here instead of to RCP?)

Althouse may be on the other side.

Placeholder said...

I'm against public employee unions, now that I know Althouse is taking a $10,000 pay cut. Couldn't happen to a nicer wingnut. How are those house payments coming, Ann? Ha ha!!

Blue@9 said...

The entire concept of public sector unions is absurd. We allow collective bargaining in the private sector because companies can use unequal bargaining power to hurt employees. But what's the rationale when it comes to public sector workers? Their employer is the government we elect. We trust government to enforce fair labor laws but not to treat their own employees fairly? And even if that were problematic, there has to be a better solution than to allow the rise of a union that can campaign to elect the guy it's negotiating against.

Blue@9 said...

@J: AS do the Feds getting ready to bust this site,

Fascists often hide out in plain sight, but they always out themselves, eventually.

teachers and cops were not considered labor in 20s-30s; ergo not union material. That's FDR's point--arguably a leftist point,

Wow, no, that was not his point at all. FDR, aka Mr. Big Government, believed in the awesome power of the federal gov't as a force of beneficial change. Of course he wasn't going to back a group of people--not anybody--who could threaten to shut down the government over a contract disagreement. He may have been sympathetic to their cause, but he believed in government a lot more than he believed in unions.

Terrye said...

I guess this means that FDR believed public employees should live as slaves. I am sooo disillusioned.

Martin said...

J is as wrong as wrong can be.

He reflects the difference between the AFL (skilled) and CIO (unskilled, assembly-line) unions.

But cops and firemen were most certainly viewed as potential public-sector unionists at the time, and before. Coolidge made his national reputation standing up to a police strike as Gov. of Mass. in 1919. The possibility of police unions was certainly on the screen in the 1930s.

FDR's concern was across the whole range of possible public sevtor unions. There was considerable discussion and pressure at the time of the Wagner Act, if FDR and the New Dealers had wanted to include some public sector classes in it they certainly could have and it would have been the path of least resistance with their union supporters. This was opposed by the state and local governments that were also part of the New Deal Democratic Party, and FDR found their arguments compelling. The fact that they didn't include the public sector in te Wagner Act is clear evidence of how they saw the issue.