Amazon union head, others meet at White House on organizing

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh met with union organizers at the White House on Thursday as the administration looks to boost unionization campaigns.

Participants in the meeting, which featured an unscheduled appearance by President Joe Biden, discussed organizers’ efforts to form unions in their workplaces, and how those could prompt workers around the country to mount similar organization campaigns, according to a readout from the White House. Biden thanked them for bolstering organizing momentum that is growing nationally.

Among the guests were Chris Smalls, who heads the Amazon Labor Union that won a vote last month to unionize warehouse workers on Staten Island, New York. Addressing a union conference in Washington last month, Biden quipped, “By the way, Amazon here we come,” drawing loud cheers, though he didn’t elaborate.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said after the meeting that Biden’s participation was about promoting labor organizing across the country, not at Amazon specifically.

Other organizers attending Thursday’s meeting included those working to unionize Starbucks, outdoors retailer REI and the animation studio Titmouse.

"Amazon union head, others meet at White House on organizing"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The only union that the states have expressly recognized in the Constitution is the union of states. So desperate Democrats have no express constitutional authority to promise government favors (eg. contracts) to labor unions to win their votes to try to stay in power imo.

"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 [emphasis 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, Justice Joseph story had indicated that the feds don't even have the constitutional authority to dictate the wages of labor. In other words, the so-called national minimum wage for example, an unconstitutional expansion of the already unconstitutionally big federal government imo, is just another way that desperate elite Democrats have exploited constitutionally low-information wage-earners to win their votes imo.

"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, 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 [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

Corrections, insights welcome.

So Biden getting cosy with the unions is just another item to add to his growing list of impeachable offenses (imo) for when Trump's red tsunami of patriot voters elect a new, Trump-endorsed patriot Congress in November.

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.