and my right NOT to???
Posted on 03/09/2021 7:18:28 PM PST by massmike
With no major labor reform since the 1930s, Democrats are seizing on the opportunity to strengthen workers' rights -- including their ability to unionize.
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the PRO (Protect the Right to Organize) Act, the most pro-worker labor reform in decades, according to the bill’s sponsors, by a vote of 225-206. Though it faces an uphill battle in the 50/50 split Senate, President Joe Biden has said that labor reform is one of his administration’s top priorities.
The House passed a version of the bill last year, but it was dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate. This time, Republicans are all but certain to filibuster the legislation that many major business groups oppose. The Chamber of Commerce says it would “destabilize America’s workplaces and impose a long list of dangerous changes to labor law.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Corrected.
The act is a self serving "protect"ion
The right to organize is always present UNLESS the workers off a state refuse the privilege.
THIS crap is the open door to illegals and the destruction of the American economy via minimum wage demands.
Corporations usually end up with the unions that they deserve.
Anti-worker but pro-union. You have the right to sign your union card in public when the union goons put the screws to you. Should you give up that right, those same goons will beat you in the parking lot and break your kneecaps.
Essentially takes away the right to NOT unionize.
A better source.
When the Dims have both Houses and the Presidency, they ram their leftist agenda through. When Trump was elected, Paul Ryan (and to a lesser extent, Cocaine Mitch) made sure very little in the way of a conservative agenda was passed.
The Repukes are pathetic.
"House passes 'Protect the 'Right to Organize Act,' 225-206, sends bill to Senate"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the specific power to recognize so-called organized labor, each member of organized labor having just one vote like all other citizens.
More specifically, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo, 19th century Supreme Court justices had already emphasized the clear meaning of that clause, that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, although post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification lawmakers are now calling for $15 national minimum wage, Justice Joseph Story had clarified that the Commerce Clause doesn’t even given Congress the power to set INTRAstate wages.
"Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour [emphasis added], the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphasis added]." —"Justice Joseph Story, Commerce Clause (1.8.3), 1833.
The bottom line is that nearly all actions of the Democratic and RINO-controlled Congress are examples of blatant overreach of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, many lawmakers needing to lose their jobs under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment imo.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphasis added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The main reason that patriots are now being oppressed under the boots of unconstitutionally big federal government is this imo.
Regardless that the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority Supreme Court justices had clarified the fed's constitutionally limited powers in United States v. Butler, using inappropriate words like “concept" and “implied,” FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later scandalously initiated the politically correct repeal of the 10th Amendment (10A) in previously mentioned Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
And since the time of Wickard, generations of misguided voters have unthinkingly abused their 17A voting power to not only finish off 10A, but have also effectively nullified the Constitution’s Article V amendment process.
Voters have done so by electing corrupt senators who promise constitutionally indefensible federal spending programs to get themselves elected by us low-information deplorables, regardless what the states that they're supposed to be protecting from federal government overreach want.
But more specifically, what's happening is this. Clueless local and state government leaders who unthinkingly beg corrupt Congress for funding for state programs evidently don't understand the following.
The "federal" funding that state leaders regularly beg Congress for is arguably state revenues that the feds have stolen from the states by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its limited constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Patriots need to wake their local and state lawmakers up to the fed's constitutionally limited powers to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes.
After unconstitutional "federal" taxes are stopped, the states will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues that they arguably won't know what to do with imo.
And to make such changes permanent, the states need to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments yesterday.
Finally, as a side note to this post, please consider the following.
Possibly a good way for patriots to challenge federal government’s constitutionally limited powers is for pro-2nd Amendment (2A) patriots, in addition to continuing to argue 2A, also argue that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws and many other laws that they make.
Patriots who accept my challenge please report blank look responses to missing federal powers to make peacetime restrictive gun laws back to FR.
NBC conveniently forgot about the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 when they said that there have been no labor reforms since the 1930s.
Union bosses, thugs, and Democratic pols have wanted to eliminate the Taft-Hartley reforms ever since it was passed. This new legislation would do precisely that.
Don Young R-Alaska
Voted for this bill
and my right NOT to???
Since most of the major unions are Marxist-oriented (power hungry), the Dems will have destroyed what Lovestone, Meany, and others did to stop the reds (over the years) from totally taking over the labor movement (Today the UFT and AFT - Weingarten, red-led; SEIU, created by the Communist Party US from Local 1199 Hospital Workers Union (Leon Davis)and District 65 - Distributive Workers Union, NYC) originally David Livingston & Al Evanoff; the ILWU led by KGB/key CPUSA labor leader, covert) Harry Bridges (30’s thru 70’s), and the Merchantmens/ Mariners Union led by CP leader Huge Mulzac (WW2 era).
The National Nurses Union today had several key CPUSA members as their press spokesmen (David Bacon and Carl Bloice), for years.
“the Dems will have destroyed what Lovestone, Meany, and others did to stop the reds (over the years) from totally taking over the labor movement”
CORRECT.
Maybe, but governments usually end up with the unions that only Democrats deserve. The obvious problem being that they affect lots of people who aren’t Democrats.
Young: a porker worthy of Robert Byrdlike infamy.
Let me guess. More rights for civil service unionizers.
e PRO (Protect the Right to Organize) Act, the most pro-union boss labor reform in decades...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.