[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.

Reagan JOKE On The Homeless

The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report)

Sicko Transfaggots video

The Englund Gambit Checkmate

20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover!

"Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning"

"'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success"

"Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace"

"Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals"

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Even FDR Was Wary of Public Employee Unions
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/009485.html
Published: Feb 10, 2010
Author: Marc Comtois
Post Date: 2011-02-23 00:37:58 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 12360
Comments: 25

This article by Rich Lowry and this piece in the Wall Street Journal both alluded to Franklin Roosevelt's wariness towards public employee unions. I was surprised. So I dug around and found one source that supports this claim. In a letter to a public employee union, Roosevelt explains that, yes, they do have a right to organize, but there are some restrictions:

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. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Well, that hasn't really come to pass now, has it?

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

Interesting that he viewed strikes by Federal employees in such a way.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

#6. To: A K A Stone (#0)

"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. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters".

This is exactly what many cannot, or will not, get into there tiny little minds, or if they do, they still don't understand.

ps: if there are any grammatical errors in my post, they were put their for the sole purpose of torturing the grammar and spelling nanny...

Murron  posted on  2011-02-23   0:51:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#6)

It's funny how you types turn off your distrust of govt when it suits you.

I like that unions made FDR afraid. The govt should be afraid of its people.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. - - From the renowned essay "On Liberty" about the tyranny of the majority by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

Godwinson  posted on  2011-02-23   2:18:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Godwinson (#8)

You said govt unions unionizing is a right in the constitution right. Ok why do only 30 states have that privelage?

What about the military they should be to unionize also right?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-02-23   7:36:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)

You said govt unions unionizing is a right in the constitution right. Ok why do only 30 states have that privelage?

What about the military they should be to unionize also right?

People have a right to join a union and demonstrate as such under the right to assemble.

I would support a union for the military - it would acknowledge what it is - a professional mercenary army. It may even prevent the fragging of officers (I wonder how many of those IEDs were set off by our troops to take out an unpopular or bad officer?).

Godwinson  posted on  2011-02-23   9:15:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Godwinson (#11)

I would support a union for the military -

Ok you're a nutjob.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-02-23   9:57:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 12.

#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)

I would support a union for the military - Ok you're a nutjob.

The confederacy voted for their unit officers in elections. They did pretty well on the battlefield.

Godwinson  posted on  2011-02-23 10:12:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com