Raynor tried to insist that as a country we routinely commit human rights abuses by not allowing workers to organize. By example he named domestic workers and farm workers. Apparently Raynor is unaware of the SEIU and the United Farm Workers or he was
Unfortunately, the video I could find of the exchange was posted at News Hounds, whose motto is "We watch FOX so you don't have to." In the post introducing the clip they write (emphasis added):
In honor of Labor Day, a special Cost of Freedom “business block” on Fox News made a special effort to attack unions. Actually, substitute host Stuart Varney didn’t just attack unions, he accused Bruce Raynor, of Workers United, of siding with “our enemies.” Why? Because Raynor supported the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations “equating the difficulty of organizing a union here in America to a human rights offense.” That must mean that Varney thinks President Obama and his administration side with our enemies, too, though he did not say so.I'll say it. President Obama and the people of his administration do not believe in American exceptionalism. They hold to a "one world" view that does not recognize individual countries. In their rosy view, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc., are not our enemies but rather our kin in the great Brotherhood of Man. Yes, we are family and the UN (which Varney correctly calls "a den of thieves") is our Daddy. If that doesn't scare the Hell out of you I don't know what will.
One further point before we get to the video: contrary to the claims above, I do not hear Varney attack unions. Perhaps the people at News Hounds have never been taught the difference between disagreeing and attacking.
2 comments:
No, those who don't allow those who create and are productive are the ones being abused by unions. For unions steal their life from them, ergo their creativity.
Never seen a union create a job, or an item of value. Never seen a union be productive.
I have seen them steal via demands from a producer though.
That is the human rights violation.
Unions had a purpose. In most cases, the need for a unon has been replaced long ago by government intervention.
About the only place I can see a union serving a purpose is where a labor pool is shared among many employers. By that I mean something like construction workers who move from general contractor to general contractor as the jobs are bid and awarded.
Having the UAW representing workers at a Ford plant, and a GM plant is wrong. even if they are in the same town. The workers almost never switch from one employer to the other.
And unions for government employees? To that I say NEVER! Gov employees work at the pleasure of the president and or congress. Either should have the right to fire them at will.
Unions shoud either be banned entirely, or limited in scope to a single geographic location and set of workers. Unions should be allowed only two members who are not part of the rank and file, the book keeper and their attorney. Every other member should get their income from wages from the employer.
Pickets should be limited to employees from the location being picketed and their immediate families to mean spouses and children. Not brothers sister or parents unless they the memebr are single and still live at home.
Last, political contributions should be voted on by the rank and file and only given to candidates approved by them in the percentages according to the vote. 100 voters, fifteen vote repub, ninteen vote libertarian. 30 vote democrat, then 15% goes repub 19% goes libertarian, 30% goes dem and the rest stays in the bank.
Unions that act like thugs should be treated like criminal gangs. RICO should apply.
Post a Comment