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: 11971
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
F.D.R. Warned Us Updated February 19, 2011, 09:38 PM James Sherk is the Bradley fellow in labor policy at the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation. “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd. Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good. The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.” Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized. George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good. Union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones. Union contracts give government employees gold-plated benefits – at the cost of higher taxes and less spending on other priorities. The alternative to Walker's budget was kicking 200,000 children off Medicaid. Governor Walker’s plan reasserts voter control over government policy. Voters’ elected representatives should decide how the government spends their taxes. More states should heed the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council’s 1959 advice: “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.” http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions Again from the above Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
Good. Should not the govt be afraid of organized citizens? Conservatives always claim the govt should be afraid of the people, right? This is another case of so called conservatives contradicting themselves. The right must be running scared if they are siding with FDR!
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
FDR wasn't wrong on everything. Neither is Obama, well maybe Obama is. Anyway he is your god and now that you saw his words it is time for you to obey or FDR will send you to hell.
again Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
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...
fyi
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).
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Prove it, you fookin blowhard.
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?
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?).
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Ok you're a nutjob.
The confederacy voted for their unit officers in elections. They did pretty well on the battlefield.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
I disagree.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Of course you do. It doesn't surprise anyone here that you are on the commie side again.
We also have Second Amendment rights but not every town has a gun store or shooting range and many don't even own a gun. In other words some choose to not exercise that right.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
It is very confusing. Maybe conservatives are shamed by the sight of middle class people leaving the comfort and warmth of their homes, putting themselves on the line to protect their rights. It is particularly shaming that they are doing this without the display of guns. I'm sure that there are conservatives among the protesters, I'm talking about conservatives who rail against the government and act like helpless victims.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
I fail to see any widespread evidence where anyone is living in a commune, or are owning property in a country equally, except some examples of mainly Christian sects living on farms or in compounds trying to create an environment that they feel will be harmonious to their beliefs. The only modern 1st world country that I can find that truly observes, sponsors and encourages limited communist practices in their citizens is......drum roll.....Israel
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
You are way too paranoid.I'm not buckeroo.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
Ok.
It surprises me.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Alaska?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
I forgot that one.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
You've been caught in another lie, blowhard.
#2. To: All, lucysmom, godwinson, skip intro, go65 (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone, war, go65, lucysmom (#0)
Even FDR Was Wary of Public Employee Unions
#4. To: Godwinson (#3)
The right must be running scared if they are siding with FDR!
#5. To: Godwinson (#3)
#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".
#7. To: murron, Ibluafartsky, Jethro Tull, war (#0)
#8. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#6)
#9. To: Godwinson (#3)
Conservatives always claim the govt should be afraid of the people, right?
#10. To: Godwinson (#8)
#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?
#12. To: Godwinson (#11)
I would support a union for the military -
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
I would support a union for the military - Ok you're a nutjob.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
#15. To: lucysmom (#14)
I disagree.
#16. 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?
#17. To: Godwinson (#3)
Conservatives always claim the govt should be afraid of the people, right? This is another case of so called conservatives contradicting themselves.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Of course you do. It doesn't surprise anyone here that you are on the commie side again.
#19. To: Rek (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
buckeroo you are limited to one screen name here. this one is banned.
#21. To: Rek (#20)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Of course you do. It doesn't surprise anyone here that you are on the commie side again.
#23. To: Rek (#18)
The only modern 1st world country that I can find that truly observes, sponsors and encourages limited communist practices in their citizens is......drum roll.....Israel
#24. To: Godwinson (#23)
Alaska?
#25. To: Godwinson, All (#9)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]